Slashdot Mirror

http://abstractionphysics.net/

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

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

.... 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.

But can you show your intelligence of yourself and match up the fictional wish list of the Nebuchadnezzar crew killings with the action constants that in reality cannot be killed off?
http://threeseas.net/vicprint/VIC-basic.html

What is programming but writing a word = definition in one form or another?

And everyone does it. So why the false constraints?

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

Holy crap, is it Tim Rue? Still psychotic, eh??

Love your 1990s web site!

How about some nice Haloperidol with those lead sheets?

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)

... 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.

...patent-able.

which makes this effort something of a public deception.

Instead what is needed is a proper genuine and honest perspective, rather than a political/economic argument
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

My wikipedia like page (with links and more) is currently down.

Dunno how many long-time internet users are left on /., but some of you might still remember net kook Timothy Rue and his Virtual Interaction Configuration, which as far as anyone could tell was a bunch of idiosyncratic homespun amigashell/arexx scripts that did... not very much.

But to Tim, oh boy, they were TEH FUTURE!http://threeseas.net/mind/index.html (beware, timecube-like schizo insanity. Only not as funny).

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/longnow/

The truth of the matter is that man has this Power of Denial...

The Hindu Arabic Decimal system was denied for 300 years.
The observations of Galileo were denied for 350 years (by the catholic church until the early 1990s)
and I'm sure there are plenty more examples of human denial.

Ultimately Man will not, cannot invent a machine smarter than himself anymore than a theoretical one dimensional being can comprehend a two dimensional object or being ... nor can a theoretical two dimensional being comprehend a three dimensional object or being, etc...

Computers will never genuinely be anything more than an extension of man.

However, it is well within human deception to lead the masses to believing otherwise. Which would be very insulting and demeaning to those such a lie is imposed upon.

Hard reality.... http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

So called Artificial Intelligence is nothing more then the by-product illusion of automating enough to deceive those humans interacting to believe its not a machine or a machine better than man.

Genuine intelligence is built upon the progression of:
Gas, liquid, solid, single cell life, plant life, animal life, consciousness...intelligence

Just as there is a build up of things, structures, technology in society that are a prerequisite of what we have built upon our knowledge, so it is with what is required of genuine knowledge.

Besides, we have plenty enough artificially intelligent people fu&'in things up as it is, we don't need a machine built by faulty human intelligence to give us something worse then the calculation that resulted in the Trillion Dollar Bet and repercussions of dotcom boom and bust, worldcom, enron and 9/11....

And even if such a machine was built and gave us solid information, what makes anyone think we as a whole would believe it and act upon the information when we can't seem to even do what we know we can do To fix the genuine problems terrorist otherwise use to promote followers...????

In college I had a TBA teacher for a communications class. He spent about five minutes on grammer and said nobody uses it so instead he was going to teach abstraction. As the class progressed he covered the different levels between the concrete and the abstract. I.e a name like Bessy is closer to the concrete in the identification of a cow named Bessy then in the more general identifications of Bessy being a cow or type of cow. As a name is more specific than a category. Unfortunately I did not complete that term due other events in my life, but I have never forgotten what he was on about.

From another direction many years later I came back to what he was on about, It is what I now call "abstraction physics" and its clear that math is a subset of abstraction as is the communication of sciences and fiction, programming etc..

For an introduction to Abstraction Physics
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

I am currently working on getting an AbstractionPhysics tri domain up (.org , .net, .com) .org for the Abstraction Physics - Virtual Interaction Configuration project (an open source program), .net for community communications (playing with abstractions) and .com for potential funding generation of the project.

I may have the beginning of .net up today and there is always the above link to start with.

The whole point of using and programming computers is to automate....

Software Patents are acts of fraud against the consumer and users.

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

False positives....

The story is presented with a stage light focused on linux but then the house lights come up and show linux in jail along with most of the audience.

This is just one paper for one Automated Software Engineering (ASE) conference.

But if you really want to insure software becomes genuinely free, then the level or automated software development will have to become easy enough for the typical user to apply it. Much like most anyone knows how to use a calculator and uses it as they need.

There is currently some effort being applied in the ASE overall focus that will become unimportant and not used once such a user level is reached, not to mention the changes on hardware that enables users to take their system with them on a key chain. Though there will be servers, the majority of use of such automated software creation at such a level will be at the users level, be they a system developer or a casual end user.

And like a calculator calculations sequence...uh err... finger print.... this finger printing becomes pointless.
as it will be found to be something of a reflection of the underlying knowledge system, and not so unique of the users.

To get to the basics of automation and realize the commonality of it is to then know the GPL advantage is NOT having "its mine and you cannot use, overhead and land mines"

For some automation basics - http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

You are the Anonymous Coward, not I.

Apparently I have intimidated you.

Let me rub it in!

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

As I said, Com outright stated how he got started with kernel patches. As an end user.

So don't say end users don't wanna, or are to stupid to know they want to.

educate yourself...

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

The artificial barriers are keeping us all away from using the natural barriers to our advantage.

With correct understanding of the natural barriers, we can do a lot more and that includes users as well.

Math is inherently difficult to, especially if you are using the roman numeral system to do it with.

But we have this new abstraction set we use instead. Its called the decimal system with its "only a fool would think nothing can have vale" zero place holder.

Likewise, Programming has the same actions constants as anything else we do, especially in dealing with abstractions.

Math is not a process of putting blocks together anymore than programming is, but the basis of all math is simple addition. Likewise, the application of the action constants in programming, though having a basis on simple concepts, can most certainly be used in a manner beyond "adding blocks together" but of being dynamic.

So, educate yourself!

First: Deprogram yourself in your thinking (to use the analogy) it foolish that nothing can have value. Deprogram yourself from thinking what you were taught in regards to programming is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Because truth is not the whole picture that you will find in honesty.

Second: Know yourself! Learn how to recognize yours and others application of the action constants, that nobody can avoid using, no matter what you or they do.

Third: Apply your new awareness of your use of the action constants along with what you were taught about programming .

And realize programming today is barbaric, arrogant and limiting as to what we could be accomplishing.
Not to mention voiding once and for all, via common knowledge, software patents.

...etc..

The IT industry sector here = IBM

Things that cannot be patented: Natural Law, Physical Phenomenon, Abstract Ideas are the three primaries. Mathematical algorithms are also considered non-patentable but in fact are a subset of abstract ideas.

Man is unlike other animal life, he is capable of consciousness or in other words, abstraction above basic level. It is the nature or natural law of human character. It is further a physical phenomenon that man converts abstract thinking into physical movement and the creation, repair and manipulation of physical objects large and very very small. And programing is commonly thought of in terms of mathematical algorithms.

Software is not of patentable nature, It has all three primary strikes against it. So apparently the US position on software Patents is one of supporting Fraud.
So is it really any surprise that we have problems with the patent system in regards to software? Would you have a with any other natural law, physical phenomenon or abstract idea if you went against the honesty about it? Try thinking that you can walk off a cliff without anything but your thoughts to keep you from falling!

It should be obvious why there are problems with the patent system regarding the IT sector. IBM is a very large software patent holder and the one most supporting this "reform". They are also making available many of their patents to anyone to use without need to compensate IBM for such use. IBM knows, but they are not ready to give it all up yet. The change has to happen across the IT board. It must happen. There is no excuse to not correct the wrong of fraud.

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

IS it any surprise the us is falling in innovation, given such fraud that can only act to suppress innovation?

Yes, the FFII!!!

From a now "read only" wiki http://wiki.ffii.org/IstTamaiEn

I wrote that and later created a wikipedia entry in part due to someone having created a wikipedia entry on me that was in error regarding related project. It was removed with the general claim that it was original research along with the distroted wikipedia entry someone else created on myself.

Now I've expanded upon ffii wiki here http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html And as anyone can read the notes and references, I've been at this for some near two decades. Software is provably not subject matter of patent-ability, however there is this matter of mindset changes to take affect and effect the clairity of understanding the genuine nature of what software is, that software patents are act of fraud. Fraud against the natural human ability to think and communicate in terms of abstraction at higher level than other identified animal species.

After near twenty years of effort to communicate this and the fundamentals of abstraction physics, it seem its beginning to take hold and move in a direction of educational teaching. The USPTO knows of my effort. see the notes and references.

Its about proof of the non-patent-ability of software. Its not about politics unless you are trying to fabricate an excuse to ignore the fact that software is made up of what is universally agreed upon as to what is not patentable. Natural Law, Physical Phenomenon, Abstract ideas, mathematical equations, etc...

There is a lot already vested in Software Patents and its difficult to just suddenly disallow them as it will cause a disruption in business economics. But wrongs must be corrected!!!! Make no mistake about it. IBM is presenting a good example of what needs to happen. They are a major software patent holder and have a lot at stake. They are also on the mailing list of "open source as prior art" and I would imagine the mailing list for patent application peer-review that the USPTO has recently begun testing.

What IBM is doing is involuntarily removing the threat of their patent holdings by making them available for free use by others. And this is exactly what needs to happen.
Business is not that bad guy! It is people in control who make bad choices. So the conversion of the vested interest into un-invested needs to be voluntary right now. once the momentum picks up, then enough weight will move changes in government policy regarding software patents in the US. Software patents should have never been allowed, but happen through court rooms not in the public eye. Hindsight is 20/20.

If I was a business that got caught up in the "get your software patented" or be forced out of business by those who do, AND then after doing so software patents are suddenly disallowed......You can be damn sure I'd YELL "ENTRAPMENT!!!"

It took 300 years for the general population to move to the hindu-arabic decimal system from Roman numerals.... But this conversion towards correction with todays technology and rate of advancement will certainly happen a lot faster. Especially with pressure in other ways regarding computer science.

What the short review seem to be saying is that the author recognizes its not just math.

How in depth the book goes I do not know, but I do know I've been on about the abstraction perspective for near two decades and communicating it to everyone I can including to those in positions at universities.

I have noticed these last few years there are others beginning to grasp the bigger picture, such as J. Wing of CMU and her "Computational Thinking" perspective http://www.cs.cmu.edu/computational_thinking.html perspective and another P. Denning of GMU and his "Great Principles of Computing" http://cs.gmu.edu/cne/pjd/GP/GP-site/welcome.html and I'm sure there are others.

Now I see this short book review "Computer Science Reconsidered: The Invocation Model of Process Expression"...yet I have not seen from any of them software or even an outline of such, that anyone can use to explore and apply the presented perspective. And we all know that to really understand something as it applies to computers requires that actual use of a computer in the learning process for verification of understanding.

So, here is mine http://threeseas.net/vicprint/Virtual_Interaction_ Configuration.html which the link I gave in the parent post points to.

Its all about Abstraction Physics no matter how you present it or what you call it. The evidence is in the inability to avoid using the mentioned action constants set, with or without computers. Know what you do, in everything you do!

....Abstraction.

And computer science, the software side, is really the science of abstraction physics.

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

At some point in the higher levels of abstraction creation and use you use the lower mathematical level as more or less a carrier wave of the higher level abstraction, than for the purpose of performing a mathematical calculation. The analogy is that of using radio waves to carry the music you hear over the radio, but the carrier wave is discardedafter it has done it job. Likewise, the mathematics of computers boils down to binary flipping of transistor swiches upon which the higher level of mathematics is carried upon.

With a correct approach to the abstraction manipulation machine computers really are, we can accomplish a lot more, similar to the difference between using the limitation of roman numerals in math vs. the decimal system with its zero place holder.

Software Patents are acts of fraud. This is because of the nature of software and the universally accepted things that cannot be patented. (i.e. Physical Phenomenon, Abstract Ideas, natural law, etc..) but which all are the essence of software.

So, take something that is not patentable due its nature and allow it to be. What can you expect to manifest in the way of problems and symptoms of such human error, acts against the natural characteristics of human ability to create and use abstraction and to use abstraction from others to build improvements on?

sum total being false limitations on advancements and human thought, but in part.

Its not like software can't be protected with copyright, which actually last longer than patents but copyrights don't prevent the application of an "ABSTRACT IDEA" via a different method or sequence of abstraction.

Software Patents are acts of fraud against human, but done by humans who want it their way even when it cost them the advancements others could make that you and their children would benefit from. (which over generations can amount to far more advancement over a given period of time in comparison to applying false constraints.)

Dumb down the consumers and then lie to them so to extract value from them that they would have otherwise figured out one their own and done a better job.
Even software development methodologies today are way over over complexicated ---> http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

... there is a time limit from fist publication of an invention to when it can be applied for a patent. If that time is exceeded then no patent will be granted.
The case itself (not to mention when the USPTO first granted the patent) is far older than that time limit.

Obviously if MS can prove they invented it first, then both patents are invalid.
Eolas because they were not the first to invent and MS because the technology was in use far longer than allowed, prior to their patent application.

This can also be the test case to prove or disprove the arguement of changing to first to file from first to invent, as supposedly the arguement is that prior art evidence rules in either case. In other words, you shouldn't have to file for a patent on something you do not want or believe is patentable, that you developed and without fear that someone else will take your work and be the first to file.

If the USPTO ignores their own first publication rules (and this does include public use) then they only add to the invalidation of the patent system (which extends beyond just software).

And this doesn't even touch on the fact that software patents are acts of fraud, as software is made up of the universal agreed upon things that cannot be patented.
Natural Law, Physical Phenomenon, Abstract ideas and the rest (i.e. mathematical algorithms) are subsets of these three primary NON-PATENTABLE things.
see: http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

...all this is really a distraction from dealing with the core issue of the fraudulent perspective of the patenting software.

See: http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html re: what is universally considered NOT patentable.

everyone else.

There is a human characteristic about software that make its not patentable.

MS has teamed up with CMU on a project that distorts the origins of computation and gives credit to the machine rather than the humans who have made the computer all that it is. Do a google on "Computational Thinking".

At any rate the human characteristic is that if the natural ability to apply Abstraction Physics and as such software is really not of patentable nature.

All the software patent law suits are fraudlent. It s really rather ignorant due to the fact that copyright is more appropriate and terms are longer. Patents on the other hand try and be what copyright doesn't cover, and that is broad claims.

Get a clue!

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

Software is NOT patentable.

Maybe the quantization is not quite what you might think, but at all levels there are constant (actions) that exist.
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

Do a google for "abstraction physics" and look here for Abstraction_Physics

more fun can be had in using googles patent search and inputting "virtual interaction configuration".
Consider re-writting the found patent "semantic user interface" #RE39,090 IIRC (referencing the mentioned V.I.C., in Abstraction Physics link) in terms that are not patentable.

And I don't give a damn about either company in the article, but rather what is a human right and honest!

...disallow patents for software and it will make a big difference on the work load of the patent office.

Abstraction Physics is a perspective on software that shows software is in no way shape or form of a nature patentable. It actually falls into the three main things universally accepted as NOT patentable. Physical phenomenon, natural law and abstract ideas. The forth is math algorithms as many claim software is that, but math is a subset of abstractions.

As a thing to do, take any software patent and re-write the claims and such to be in terms of common, non-novel etc.. perspective.
I intend on doing this to a patent that mentions my work in its "other references" semantic user interface patent number RE39,090 (IIRC)

.... reasons.

source is done in various languages, modifying existing code to fit a new project can be more prone to creating bugs then doing it fresh, code might be useful in a way it was not original though of being used (creating another aspect of search...), a there may be licensing issues, etc..

Ultimately what we need is a higher level abstraction machine BUT disconnected from actual code. A level of abstraction that can be used to define the objective and constraints required and apply it to a code fragment/algorithm base and designed to go through a cycling of refinement regarding specifics. Once done, code is then generated in the language specified, or best fit.
And in time refinement of the code fragment/algorithm would be debugged to improve overall quality of resulting code.

Is this to far in the future in thinking about?

No! The base line abstraction mechanics is already identified and defined and even mostly coded.
Virtual Interaction Configuration
Also see: Abstraction Physics

.... reasons.

source is done in various languages, modifying existing code to fit a new project can be more prone to creating bugs then doing it fresh, code might be useful in a way it was not original though of being used (creating another aspect of search...), a there may be licensing issues, etc..

Ultimately what we need is a higher level abstraction machine BUT disconnected from actual code. A level of abstraction that can be used to define the objective and constraints required and apply it to a code fragment/algorithm base and designed to go through a cycling of refinement regarding specifics. Once done, code is then generated in the language specified, or best fit.
And in time refinement of the code fragment/algorithm would be debugged to improve overall quality of resulting code.

Is this to far in the future in thinking about?

No! The base line abstraction mechanics is already identified and defined and even mostly coded.
Virtual Interaction Configuration
Also see: Abstraction Physics

Try doing advanced math using the roman numeral system (no translation).

The analogy is that programming is today being approached in a manner that is far more limiting then it needs to be.

There are those who claim programming is nothing more than mathmatical algorithims, but it is more as programmers create higher level abstractions to deal with lower level abstractions faster. Sure it can be all boiled down to mathmatical algorithims and even down to binary or machine language but it is the higher levle of abstraction where software is today created.

The science of software has failed or been distracted from the genuine objective of identifying and defining abstraction physics. For it is Abstraction that is the essence of programming, and there most certainly is a physics that applies to our creation and use of abstractions.

We create abstractions in order to simplify or automate complexity of lower level abstractions, down to binary.
The failure is that of not recognizing what we all constantly do, what action constants we apply in our creation and use of abstractions.

Its like doing chemistry before we came up with the understanding to create the table of elements. We didn't understand the underlying mechanics. But once we understood these underlying mechanics, we created chemical megaplants.

Though we would not create software megaplants, in understanding abstraction physics, we would do what was accomplished with teh conversion of math from roman numerals to the hindu arbic decimal system. We'd make programming easy enough that the adverage user would do alot more for themselves, just as the general population was able to not only do math for themselves in teh conversion of symbols used (roman numerals to decial) but were able to do more advanced math then the roman numeral elite accountants were able to do.

Of course the problem is in conversion, as it took 300 years for the conversion to happen. It took 350 years for Galelio to be exonerated....ask the catholic church why... and know why the industry of programming, and regardless of what side of the fence you are on (proprietary or open source), presents resistance to the needed change.

Programming is hard, because the industry wants it to be. So to keep the elitism, social status and pay scale.

Of course social demands weigh in on the change happening. As computers today could not have been created using the roman numeral system of math. It won't be hundreds of year for this change to happen, as we already can't keep up using the lessor/harder route.

Abstraction Physics

Like doing advanced math with roman numerals (no translation).

But then the hindu-arabic decimal system came along with its (how can nothing have value) zero place holder and the common man was able to do more than replace the roman numeral elite accountants, they were able to do more math.

The same thing applies to software development, a need for an easier way.

hence, Abstraction Physics.

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

any one (of the elite) wanna help?

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

considering the article is from physorg......

and to think they plan to patent it? Abstraction Physics?

I don't think so...

Yeah?

You sound like a roman numeral accountant saying that anyone who thinks nothing can have value must be crazy.

Though it may have taken 300 years, the hindu arabic decimal system with its "nothing" holding a place value (zero) turned out to be so easy and powerful that teh adverage person could easily out do the roman numeral accountants.

The same it is with programming, there is a way to approach it that is easier and even boring.
It's just a matter of approaching it in terms of abstraction physics. Some that we all use everyday and regardless of whether or not we use computers.

Richard Stallman believes in Free Software and I say software will never be genuinely free untill the creation of it is easy enough to do that most anyone will upon the need or inspiration to.

see http://www.threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html and recognize the ten base actions.

How much Open Source Intellectual Property is Microsoft Infringing upon? How much are they using that they are not infringing upon due to a given license such as BSD?

There is a method in the computer industry between companies as to how they calculate teh amount of protection money they pass between themselves,

Take the granted patent paper work and stack it up, measure it and compare it to other stacks. The largest stack wins but the other have to pay protection money to the larger stacks. I don't know the specific formula as to how they calculate it, but it does happen.

So, the FSF can stack its owned stuff up but there is alot more that teh FSF does not own.
Perhaps there should be some sort of "count my work in the FOSS stack" method so that we might just see how large our (FOSS) IP stack is (and this would of cource count anti-patent IP prior art).

There are two efforts regarding software patents. "Open source as Prior Art" and a Peer Review project, but both of these are focused and supportive of software patents.

And that is the main problem, as software, by its very nature is provably not patentable. Problem is, neither side of the software rights battle wants to develop the proof of this. Human History has plenty of evidence of the usefulness of denial, but eventually this fact will come out, as facts of the earth revolving around the sun, the hindu arabic decimal system being more powerful then the roman numeral system of mathmatics, etc.

There is a quality and characteristic of being human, a human right. A natural right to apply abstraction physics. http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

Its really rather obvious once you get past whatever idea is keeping you from seeing teh simplicity of it.
The arguement that only a fool would think nothing can have value (re: the zero place holder in teh decimal system)
Nobody can break the four minute mile, untill somone did, and then other followed quickly as their mental block was gone.

But even if you don't see it, consider what it wou;d mean across the software industry, should such simplicity of programming happen.

        http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

        Artificial intelligence is the by product of automating enought that the sum generated the appearance of human character in the reflection of its program processing.

I was confused. Then I clicked on your link. Then I became even more confused.

Artificial Intelligence at best is what each word is defined in the dictionary, then put together. Simply put, NOT REAL, an imitation!

And that is exactly what artificial Intelligence is, an imitation we create, a part here, a part there. And of course it can be said that its an image of ourselves as we are the programmers, and the machine is in essence made out of what is in essence stone material of various types (not biological material.)

The deception is in the hiding of the fact that its such an imitation of ourselves, artificial. The deception that its something more then we are. And it is this where the danger comes in. But it is like the building of the tower of babel, it won't work, it will fall. The reason is simple, we have yet to recognize correctly and apply such recognition on a wide scale what this tool we call a computer really is.

It is an abstraction machine upon which we apply abstraction physics.

With the correct understanding we don't face such danger of misunderstanding or deceptions that the machine is more then we are. As such there won't be any hype or unjustified claims.

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

Artificial intelligence is the by product of automating enought that the sum generated the appearance of human character in the reflection of its program processing.

We are really much simpler than what most people want to believe. Kinda like the Human genome being found to not be any where near what level of complexity we thought or wanted to think we were.

The dot com bubble was fulled by an influx of investment money that was generated by the Trillion dollar bet first half payoff.
see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stock market.html

It was a case of easy and fact come, easy and fast go.

Losers of that gamble also made the news. Worldcom, Enron and the likes.

Such an influx of finances into empty product/service ideas will NOT happen again.

Artificial Intelligence at best is what each word is defined in the dictionary, then put together. Simply put, NOT REAL, an imitation!

And that is exactly what artificial Intelligence is, an imitation we create, a part here, a part there. And of course it can be said that its an image of ourselves as we are the programmers, and the machine is in essence made out of what is in essence stone material of various types (not biological material.)

The deception is in the hiding of the fact that its such an imitation of ourselves, artificial. The deception that its something more then we are. And it is this where the danger comes in. But it is like the building of the tower of babel, it won't work, it will fall.
The reason is simple, we have yet to recognize correctly and apply such recognition on a wide scale what this tool we call a computer really is.

It is an abstraction machine upon which we apply abstraction physics.

With the correct understanding we don't face such danger of misunderstanding or deceptions that the machine is more then we are. As such there won't be any hype or unjustified claims.

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

Artificial intelligence is the by product of automating enought that the sum generated the appearance of human character in the reflection of its program processing.

We are really much simpler than what most people want to believe. Kinda like the Human genome being found to not be any where near what level of complexity we thought or wanted to think we were.

..Then it seems the calculator simply needs to be made easier to use so the typical user can use it to generate programs as they need or are inspired to. Like numerical calculators are used today.

Is such a thing possible?

absolutely... its called abstraction physics.

Numbers and math are a subset or symptom of the application of abstraction physics.

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

I'm tempted to buy the book just to see if he gets close or is pulling clever wool over users eyes.

And anyone claiming otherwise is in effect commiting fraud against others.

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

But maybe what is needed is complete suppression of human thought in order for there to9 be a revolt and change towards the recognition of what software really is.

http://wiki.ffii.org/IstTamaiEn

More details
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

Also see:

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/0 9/21/2130243

but the most powerful force of human mentality is "Denial"
A matter of popular or promoted belief often having nothing to do with what honesty actually is.

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

Stallman is correct that this OSDL based project is of FALSE intent.
The intent is to deceive and distract from the real issue.

When honesty of the matter (the nature of software) is dismissed via non-sequeturs and illogical irrational response, you just can't help but know what the genuine intent of the effort is.

There is no real excuse to not address the matter correctly. So why is it not being honestly addressed, but instead the presentation of so called short term detours?

There is no need for short term anything here.

read it, know it for yourself.
http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/priorart-discuss/

Programming languages change and get better or new ones come along, etc..

But all of them are subjective to Abstraction Physics.

Though "Abstraction Physics" might sound way to advanced its basics is not. In fact its really more a matter of training self awareness as the human language they are using is also subjective to Abstraction Physics.

http://wiki.ffii.org/IstTamaiEn

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

Once they understand how they are already using abstraction physics then they will be better able to grasp the subject matter of abstraction so widely used in programming.

If you are interested in more my email address can be found at the bottom of:
http://threeseas.net/vic/html/

but be sure to make the subject line something I will not skip over as that address has gotten on spam lists and I'm not going to give you another email address in public , but will privately.

Programming languages change and get better or new ones come along, etc..

But all of them are subjective to Abstraction Physics.

Though "Abstraction Physics" might sound way to advanced its basics is not. In fact its really more a matter of training self awareness as the human language they are using is also subjective to Abstraction Physics.

http://wiki.ffii.org/IstTamaiEn

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

Once they understand how they are already using abstraction physics then they will be better able to grasp the subject matter of abstraction so widely used in programming.

If you are interested in more my email address can be found at the bottom of:
http://threeseas.net/vic/html/

but be sure to make the subject line something I will not skip over as that address has gotten on spam lists and I'm not going to give you another email address in public , but will privately.

http://wiki.ffii.org/IstTamaiEn

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

but rather it is an application of a human characteristic, which we all have as a natural right and duty to use, to prove we are human.

....the illusion of computer technology being more than man will come to an end when man realizes computer technology is a stone image of man and creates and programs it and no matter how much any man wants computer tech to be the beast, it'll never be.

Artificial Intelligence, besides being an oxymoron in definition, is no more than a by product illusion of simply automating enough to fool, which is not difficult to do, a human into thinking it is another human.

What will happen instead is the realization of http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

... very much needed

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

Patents on software came into existing through the small court door where the skill of abstraction manipulation was used to argue for it by those inherently skill at such, due to the nature of soiftware.

With this in mind, what needs to be taught so that this skill will exposed and seen through when it is being unfairly biased?

There is this issue of "state of the art" of what is supposedly "computer science" but then there is "Abstraction Physics" which applies to not only software but to anything we do with abstractions. This on the matter of non-novel.

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

It took 300 for teh easier and more powerful hindu-arabic decimal system to overcome the roman numeral system of limited math. It took 350 years for the catholic church to openly accept the genuine scientific observation of Galileo (early 1990's the pope exonerated Galieo...for of course the benefit of the church, not long dead Galileo)

We gonna wait 400 years for what should be considered obvious in software creation, to be just that, obvious?
Or are we gonna recognize what we naturally do, unavoidably, sooner?

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html