Amiga inc, has hired several former Microsoft Employees and now they are in a partnership with MS to provide content for MS products like CE.
Many in the classic Amiga community do not like this and also don't like Amiga taking claim of ownwership of the community, in claims that the community is 110% supportive of what they are doing.
A couple of Amiga news boards have dropped all news directly tied to Amiga inc. in a boycott.
If you really want to do something about MS then let people know that you do not support MS and that there are alternatives.
Simply Put: Boycott MS in any and all ways you can.
The following is the combination of my words from two messages to the lightweight language list (the snips that I was responding to have been removed and the responses have not been included either.)
The point is, the end user doesn't and shouldn't have to learn to think like some specific programmer, but the field of programming and simply "doing" things with computers can be quantized down to an overlay of common action set used to "automate". And in a manner that anyone using a computer can understand what a computer is, an automation machine with programmed automations, which can include autocoding (usable by the end user with end user resources.)
Meaning there is a common ground to recognize and use to bridge the supposed gap. Slashdot has had quite a day that this thread is posted to.
On the Intellectual Property issues: (the following is not directed at anyone specific - unless mentioned below - but rather general statements form the other side [father physics and mother nature synergy] POV.)
There are some things that cannot be owned or otherwise constrained in use.
Natural Law, Physical Phenomenon, Abstract Ideas and there are more such things on the list as well, these are the top three.
The reasons such things cannot be IP constrained is becaue they are in essence more powerful than human control can handle in a manner of enforcement or adhearance to man applied constraints. Language itself is something that grows so long as it is not constrained in use rights or royality payments, etc..
Any man made system that attempts or claims to have or place constraints on such items are in essence undermining itself by presenting the illusion, a falseness of power to constrain others. No different than witch hunts, master race, slavery, irrational inqusitions, etc., only proving a lack of being in touch with hard reality by those of the system.
The idea of applying minor variations to that which qualifies as non-IP ownable, in order to alter it enough to make it IP ownable, is what we already have alot of and in no way does such distortions create any sort of "improvements" to what simply is (no matter what hype and marketing babel is added). Rather what the results are is something less in value and usability, the addition of constraints that otherwise do not exist.
Distorting physical reality is not going to get you something better in reality, but only an illusion, and excape from reality. And don't we already know where this leads? Haven't we enough examples of seemingly impossible to solve problems (as in computer programming) as a result of such illusions?
"make people need you" is an MS business attitude and inherently it must distort reality for this attitude to "pay off" in non-direct ways. In comparision consider how the non-constrained TCP/IP protocal payed off in direct ways. non-direct meaning money, direct meaning functionality and use productivity that then helps to cause money to flow.
To Be Clear:.NET is a distortion of reality one way or another and as such it is also logically less than what can be and is defined by physically reality. Physical reality does not state.net can't be used to create GPL software. That constraint is a man made one, made of only thought.
But how aware people are to what is........illusion or reality???? Reality doesn't care whether or not you are aware of it, it still is and keeps on keeping on. Obvious? Wasn't it obvious the earth revolved around the sun? Perhaps that non-obvious "idea" should bave been patented and hidden in a vault forever (so as to support the those then in "control"?)
Would MS or what other company would like to have a patent on air?
All you have to do is communicate it in a difficult to follow language that sounds and looks intellectually good and the patent office will figure rather than look stupid for not really understanding, if someone wants to oppose it, they'll have to pay the patent office something like 2 grand $$$ to start the process. Or be challenged in court by the IP holder of air, where the judge who breaths it will do the patent office employees job. No sweat of the back of the patent office employee. But benefit to those who can fool the majority?
If you really want to solve the problems with advancement constraints in the field of programming, then remove the false constraints and stop promoting them. Don't be skerd, for skerd begets skerd.
If you do not know the difference between a 3D data array or 3D computer generated graphics and 3D reality of length, width and height, that you were taught in grade school, then the matrix has you. Take a vacation, become unplugged.
The talking of a distortion of reality and improving upon it, some here and some there, until it is a representation of reality, is NOT an EXCUSE or a sneaking up method to Patent Reality. But the attempts to do so is the essence of the collision path some have identified regarding IP directions and patent offices judgement difficulties.
Father Physics and Mother Nature always wins. Their synergy is always faster and stronger than a distorted representation of it.
Language is only as useful as it's agreed upon use. To automate it's use (as in programming languages, and translations of) is to insure it's agreed upon use. I.E. to automate the adhearance to a given languages do's, don'ts, and standards is to insure against bugs of those types.
Isn't the goal of programming to make bug free applications? Or is it to sell upgrades based on bug existance and removal? Where is the illusion?
You cannot solve a general language problem by creating another language. It's the Turing Halting problem and Godel's Theorem
But there is another approach, not a language but action set for automation of language use and translation. The gears and bearing of doing.
I suggest an open source software project to produce a core tool that will allow an autocoding environment to be developed, allowed to evolve in the open source software community and spirit of. I believe we can overcome many of the problems that proprietary autocoding systems inherently have (not to mention that existing autocoding systems appear to be field/domain specific limited and that it may be possible to beat this too.)
First: Ghostscript PDF viewers for the following PDF links (if you don't already have a PDF viewer) http://www.cs.wisc.edu/%7Eghost/
The following information represents what is probably the best of what is available thru the Web on the subject of autocoding. (via google)
HIRTS DARP Working Group on Autocoding, 18th, 19th April 2000 http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/hise/darp/pdf/autoc oding. pdf (Brings up various issues which will help you focus in on what "autocoding" is and what some of the issues to solve, are.)
The follow up, to the above, is: May 8th thru 10th, 2001 "DARP HIRTS Workshop" paper by Jakob Engblom: http://www.artes.uu.se/mobility/reports/ hirts_repo rt1.0.pdf (See pages 5-6 section 3.2.5 The Use of Tools in Aerospace)
In summary, Though autocoding is being used to some extent, it is a future hope, since in general it has a bug density which is an order of a magnititude lower than manual code. Point being is that this is leading edge stuff, an opportunity for OSS to shine.
The above paper mentioned the SCADE autocoding product: http://www.esterel-technologies.com/scad e/ (See code generator part of Product overview, Benefits, Toolset Features)
Autocoding as it applies to the medical industry: http://www.ahima.org/journal/coding/cod ing.0110.1. htm (Since it was mentioned in a paper above, know it's a product of a different nature.)
To help show why I believe OSS efforts can shine when it comes to such a project as Autocoding:
QinetiQ - Analysis of the Impact of Open Source Software http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/interoperabili ty/egif_do cument.asp?docnum=430
and From the Conference on the Public Domain, Nov. 9-11. 2001 at Duke Law School "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm" by Yochai Benkler: http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/Coase%27s_Pengui n.pdf
It is also worth mentioning, to my undersandng, that the GNU efforts are becomming more modular in nature and there is also the Hurd that is modular or componet based from the ground up. This is a consistant and fitting direction in accord with an open autocoding development and use environment.
OK, so although this project is not AeroSpace "Mission Critical", it does not hurt to make the quality target of the project to be of such high standards. Actually, what I believe is that the core (as mentioned at the beginning of this post) can be made to be of high quality itself, where the rest, the coding knowledge base or what ever you want to call the pre-autocode dictionary, will be of whatever quality it is created and improved to be (as is the way and spirit of the OSS community.)
Where to start?
Automating what was done manually requires the identification of, and ability to apply, the manual action set we use, but have the computer do it. A USPTO Published comment introducing these identified actions and suggestions of how they may be applied, including autocoding, is here: http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.ht ml
The bottom part of my home page regarding the "Virtial Interaction Configuration": http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue /
An older paper on the Virtual Interaction Configuration: http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ KC.html
Why don't I do this shell and/or library myself?
I don't consider myself a programmer having the experience and knowledge of better ways of coding somethings and as such I'm sure this core of functionality can be coded better and faster than what I could do, but there is what I have done, and that includes some python programming that can be used and run to show/communicate some of the concepts of the Virtual Interaction Configuration. And I can provide insight as to how it may be used for such things as autocoding. Until recently, this past week, I wasn't aware "autocoding" was an actual goal and practice of anyone, though I have used the term for sever years now, and apparently, given the above HIRTS DARP papers, my perspectives and thoughts on the matter have been along the lines of what's been going on. Though I do believe The VIC as a core can solve some of the problems facing commercial autocoding packages (but this is something to get into later, when I can communicate but showing).
Besides the VIC core, there is the pre-automation code base(s) to create for whatever programming language(s) people want to use. And that's something clearly beyond my ability to directly do, at least in the beginning. Besides, there are many other things the VIC can be used for besides autocoding. Consider it a tool for general automation...
At any rate I do believe Autocoding is a worthwhile goal that the GNU community can shine at. And I think some of you, in consideration of the HIRTS DARP link contents and the USPTO comment, will too.
There are nine action constants and by identifying them in what we do, by super-imposing or overlaying these actions upon what we do, we can identify the automation points. With this, we can automate what we do thru computers, including programming. And what is programming but the automation of complexity that is made up of simpler things, done so to make the use and reuse of such complexity easy for the user.
What language you use is perhaps more a matter of interfacing to a process that eventually is translated into machine readable form, binary machine code. Mixing and matching languages for the best of effect shouldn't be a problem as it eventually gets converted to the machine code common. But understand that this is not a new language or a replacement of languages, rather a tool set to allow the automation of language use. I.E. automating the do's, don'ts and standards in any language as well as any dynamically repeatable sequence of functionality.
Certainly everyone does understand in reading and responding to posts here, they actually make use of all nine action (the crew of the Nebachadnezzar [each persons ship]).
It's physics!
Lets see now (using the metaphors of the movie "The Matrix"):
Switch (AI - alternate/activate interface) - start and stop, change interfaces - Uh, start up Web Browser/newsreader/email client and connect. Go to group, thread....
Apoc (PK - Place Keeper) - keep track of where you are - Pick up where you left off on the thread..
Tank (OI - Obtain Input - Output to-> Input) - get input - read with eyes.
Mouse (IP - InPut set) - input from - internet and monitor
Dozer (OP - OutPut set) - push output to - via keyboard/mouse to Mailing list posting.
Neo (SF - Sequence stufF) - one step at a time - damn this non-polyphonic qwerty keyboard and mouse...
Morpheus (IQ - Intelligence Quotient) - what's the meaning of the post I'm reading, what the meaning I want to respond with - within the (KE'd) constraints of....
Trinity (ID - IDentify) - identify posters and forum - hey there is one by ____ in ____ forum, now I know to be (KE'd) constrained as to how I respond.
Cypher (KE - Knowledge Enable)- constraints to apply to Morpheus (IQ) meanings and Trinity (ID) poster named _____ and _____ forum and ____ topic.
Of course the three agents represent the three fundamental concepts of INPUT, PROCESSING, OUTPUT. The nine above are an expansion upon them. Just as in physics, the more details you have the greater the control.
Maybe it'd be a worthwhile exercise to ask others to give an example of their use of the nine, in using computer or other non-computer related things done?
There is something else that makes such a configuration of functionality even more useful, beyond just programming and that is to supply the user with the three primary User Interfaces. The CommandLine Interface, The GUI and the side door to application/functionality external control. And example that may be seen as the Amiga Arexx "Ports" found pretty much standard in amiga applications, libraries and devices. But lets just call it the Automation Programming Interface (API), as the general concept of this "side door" exist in many different flavors and limitations usually unfriendly in standard an ease of use.
But with all three accessible in a user friendly way..... Well if you eliminat one of the primary colors of light (RGB) then the remaining combination is far more limiting than -1/3 due to synergy of the three. The same door of possibilities exist with the three primary user interfaces.
If interested in helping, it's an open project, let me know. If interested in using such a tool, then say so here, let others know.
They go on to state "This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"
Ends doesn't justify means???
Maybe they should have thought of that before the committed crimes????
What if MS never got away with any of the wrong stuff they have done? where would there OS be today? Would it be a stable and consistant development platform? Or would we have something much better?
How do you undo all the damage MS has done, put back in place all the companies that MS wrongfully distroyed and harmed?
Fact is you can't undo the damage.
So what moron wants the same unfairness to not be done to MS?
MS deserves to the full brunt of their own medicine. Only the Legal system for with Bill seems to know all about, doesn't really know how to right things.
MS really shouldn't be allowed to continue in business. In some industries if you are caught doing the wrong things you are kicked out, and not allowed to do business ever again in that industry.
In fact given MS's persistance of doing wrong things, removing them from the industry is the only fair way to deal with them.
The question is: what to do with their customer base?
As a going out of business sale, the proceeds is to finance the conversion of their products to open source Public Domain. Seeing how they took so much from the Public with their deceptions.
If you lie, if you cheat, you lose!!!
If you murder someone, you can end up on death row.
Problem is that the laws just aren't tough enough for the computer industry, and as such it lets to many crooks run the industry and entrap everyone by not giving them a reasonable alternative.
Monies and property from drug busts go to re-enforce what?
Here in computer industry crime, it should go to make criminal activities simply not worth it. Via, supporting GPL, Public Commonwealth of computer technology.
If you cannot tell the difference between a three deminsional data array or 3D computer graphic from 3 dimensional Reality, then the Matrix has you. If you are confused about the three deminsions of length, width and height, then the matrix has you and you don't know it.
But seriously, see the code for what it is, super-impose the nine action constants upon what you do in coding to find the control points for automating.
As an example of these nine action constants, everybody uses them all when comming to slashdot, reading and posting comments.
It's physics!
Lets see now:
Switch (AI - alternate/activate interface) - start and stop, change
interfaces - Uh, start up Web Browser and connect. Go to slashdot,
newsarticle, thread....
Apoc (PK - Place Keeper) - keep track of where you are - Pick up where
you left off on the thread..
Tank (OI - Obtain Input - Output to-> Input) - get input - read with eyes.
Mouse (IP - InPut set) - input from - internet and monitor
Dozer (OP - OutPut set) - push output to - via keyboard/mouse to
Slashdot comment posting
Neo (SF - Sequence stufF) - one step at a time - damn this non-polyphonic
qwerty keyboard and mouse...
Morpheus (IQ - Intelligence Quotient) - what's the meaning of the post
I'm reading, what the meaning I want to respond with - within the
(KE'd) constraints of....
Trinity (ID - IDentify) - identify posters and forum - hey there is one
by ____ in ____ forum, now I know to be (KE'd) constrained as to
how I respond.
Cypher (KE - Knowledge Enable)- constraints to apply to Morpheus (IQ)
meanings and Trinity (ID) poster named _____ and _____ article.
There seems to be this intended but mistakenly wrong theme that Linux is dying here.
Where the fact is that Linux was much more dead last year and the year before and so on and so on, then it is today as it enters more and more government supported uses and propogates into different types of consumer devices and...... so on and so on...
Linux is spreading further and further and just because there are cases where it appears to not have made investors money doesn't mean that it's not generating value. For if it wasn't generating value, then it certainly wouldn't be growing and extending into new areas and uses. Value doesn't have to be in the direct stockmarket holder form of money.
It seems to me that the abstraction manipulation methodology of applying selective connotations in marketing practices is heavy at work here. In a place where you'd think there is to be more naturally supportive of linux community it seems to be exposing Microsoft viral infilteration of not only Slashdot but given article of recent, perhaps the OSDN organization.
And to think MS accused Linux, or more specifically the GPL as being a Viral License. Typical act of making a claim against another and then commiting it yourself. As was perhaps first done by Bill Gates yelling "Piracy" and making TIME Magizine front Cover for it.
What of Corel, really?
They are a business for profit and as any successful business which also contribute to Open Source Software and even to GPL and GNU software knows, you generally don't make it your main business. Perhaps the rule should be 10% to commonwealth baseline development?
Many have said support is where you make your money with linux, yet a Corel employee mentions here that their Linux based products resulted in more call for support that they were not charging for (due to selling closed source linux based products for profit which included free support.) Perhaps they needed to get everything set on the same page, rather than mixing pages from closed source practices and open sources practices?
Corel has for years been struggling and thru various partnerships. That is a clear indication that it's not a Linux or other product problems but rather an internal business control problem, probably one called management.
This case was supposed to be about how MS has damaged public interest. So now that the public has been given a chance to speak, who is it but corporation that are brought out into the spotlight....
I realize that Slashdot is being composed of more and more pro MS supporters.
Proof is in the lack of alternatives being presented in theory or real life.
Why is there a need to upgrade???
Fixing bugs is one thing and even that should be presented with user knowledge but changing software to handle new features is a bit leading consumers wearing blindfolds.
Next thing you know, or don't, is that your living in a pod energizing the Bill matrix. Extracted from you bank account once or more a month.
So stop using the crap and help to build something better.
Consider the group this was done on. Is it not without some bias?
Also given the current programming methodology, where the tools are difficult to use by the typical user..... Oh, wait a minute...
Programming is the act of automating complexity that is made up of simpler things. It is done in order to make repeatable things easy for the user to do, again and again.
Programming can automate any field, inclusing human balance and movement (segway) but for some strange reason automating th efield of programming is not something yet to have reached even basic automations for the typical user.
YEP. the research is greatly biased and based on software development methodology that does not include many people.
There was a time when hackers were young and hobbists, that's a fact! The only thing that has changed is they have grown up.
Will the next poll in 20 years be oriented and favorable to gray hair and retirement funding?
Maybe it's time to change the software development methodology so as to include user...... No, It is Time to do this. No Maybe About It!
The software industry need to pull it head out of it's ass and give credit where it is genuinely deserved.
When you have an industry asking the consumers "where do you want to go today?" What is really being said is that we of the computer industry have our head up our ass so bad that when don't know what to do next and we want you to tell us in this poll that only we will see the results of (IE> MS vs. DOJ - no more public information via the media, once the public comments have been entered....)
And what we in the computer industry are going to do with the result is to turn around and tell you that you are stupid and we are smart as we then empliment what you told us to but as though it our genuis.
It is out complete intent to abuse the fuck out of the consumers and to entrap them into our game of taking from the consumer everything we can, for free....unless we can do an MS and even get them dumb funking user to pay us for their ideas and our bugs.
The computer industry doesn't own anything of any value that they didn't steal from someone else.
And to insure the competition stays cntrolled, keep the software production tools really really stupid.....
Programming is the act of automating complexity that is made up of simpler things. It is done so in order to make repeatable use easy for the user.
Interesting how the Software industry can't seem to automate their own field but can automate any other.
The computer industry is a very Consumer Entrapment Abusive industry and it is made up of those who practice the art of abstraction manipulation. Not at all unlike the profession of laywers, which explains why they seem to get along so damn well with that profession.
But all of this is going to change, as a genuine science of software states that auto-coding, the automation of code generation, is very possible and has been for a long time. It's only just been avoided, due to what can be summed up as job security.
I'm really tired of people that claim they are some sort of expert or another telling me what I want or don't want.
I want linux on the Desk top and as far as I can tell it got a hell of a better user and use base going on than any other OS right now. Imagine when Linux finally makes it to the desk top (in the way people think it should - beside MS cronnies that can't ever see it as a viable desk top OS)... When linux does make it to the desk top it wil be in a position with such a broad standard in application or usage that it will be far more solid than any other OS.
Then Again, If the Hurd group ever figures out the "Solid Core" and automate user production of custom servers... There will already be the GNU software base most preceive as Linux (Linux is just the kernel!!!)
So yeah!, Maybe Linux won't make it to the Desk top as others preceive.
BUT GNU WILL MAKE IT, One way or the other!!!
MS cronnies are out in force! Aren't they!?
AI - By-product Illusion of..
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
Programming is the act automating complexity that is made up of simpler things. So it's really all about automation and with the right automation tools and enough automated, you'll get your by-product illusion of Artificial Intelligence, plenty enough to pass the illusion test called the Turing Test.
A.I. - nothing is naturally that stupid.
And ever rule has it's exceptions. In this case it's those who think it's right to claim it's not just an illusion. You know, like a con artist.
The GPL is designed to generate a common wealth of software, an expanding base that does drive competition in the commercial market, regardless of the licenses being used in the market.
On one end of the spectrum of licenses you have the growth of this base of Common Wealth code.
On the other end you have the extream of closed down tight proprietary code that is done so as a matter of milking it for every penny you can get out of it, profits focused to a few.
If all code was proprietary, you can be certain that we would not be anywhere near as advanced in this technology as we are today.
The BSD License doesn't help the Common Wealth code base as much as GPL does. But the GPL doesn't help the proprietary code base any more than vice versa.
So, do you build upon Common Wealth or slow it's advancement thru such licenses support some other point in the spectrum?
In time it will become clear that compromises such as what the BSD license allows, will act counter productive to the GPL objective/goal. In time, thru the compromise, the GPL will become heavely constrained by those who use the compromise to place barriers to advancement in front of the GPL.
Consider a piece of BSD licensed code, open to be improved until someone comes along and pulls it behind the curtain and slaps patented piece of software on it, effectively preventing anyone else from advancing that software in that direction in an open source manner.
It should be worth noting that IBM is the Leading US patent holder, being granted more patents a year than any other company or party, in the US.
This particular story regarding Mono is a good indication of....Ok it's ok to make the engines available for free but we are gonna own all the tires and gas.....and these engines won't be able to go anywhere without our permission, and that's for sale.
RMS sees possibilities and then applies human greed to the equasion to determine what to expect. I now this because I do it too, and it's always right.
So Sure RMS seems to be extream, because when dealing with the devil, there is no such thing as compromise. Only an illusion to lead you to think so, untill it's to late for you to do anything about it.
Perhaps I'm uneducated about what all is out there currently. But it seems to me that with a common base of GNU, Open Source Software, etc.. The building of the Public Common Wealth of computer operating systems and the benefit this is providing to everyone around the world, that there should be some sort of Sponsorship type of program or organization that would help to streamline the searching for and finding, the matching up of corporate sponsors to software projects.
Would it be so bad that in return the Sponsor gets a mention in the source code and perhaps even in any "about this program" information box or command line option?
Yeah, and they do an excellent job of providing us all with usenet archives +++, free of charge!
What came first, the GNU kernel or linux?
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 2
I'm a bit confused here. Didn't the GNU community (what is pretty much what debian is) show it's openness to other kernels when it accepted the linux kernel while continuing on with the original GNU Hurd system? Even knowing it would slow down the progress of the Hurd?
I'm confused because the listy of reasons seem to suggest that it was in accepting the Hurd that states Debian is open to other kernels.
And even the Hurd is open to different micro-kernels! Mach and L4 are current micro kernel use efforts.
Slashdot Mirror
Amiga inc, has hired several former Microsoft Employees and now they are in a partnership with MS to provide content for MS products like CE.
Many in the classic Amiga community do not like this and also don't like Amiga taking claim of ownwership of the community, in claims that the community is 110% supportive of what they are doing.
A couple of Amiga news boards have dropped all news directly tied to Amiga inc. in a boycott.
If you really want to do something about MS then let people know that you do not support MS and that there are alternatives.
Simply Put: Boycott MS in any and all ways you can.
How is solving the NP-Complete problem useful to NASA?
Putting blocks together (any kid can do it):
More than that in modularity concept
Consistant Common Connection
And the OS to handle the software side will be the Hurd.
What would happen if NP-Complete was solved?
Many responses (IIRC) were regarding encryption encoding...
several days after that article I ran across something that
suggested the potential benefits far outweighted not doing it.
Something regarding Space as in outer space and it's safety of us in it.
Anyone have links to such information, as I seem to have forgotten and lost out of browser cache the link.
Hmmmm, you may have to edit out some of the "spaces" from the links in the above message, in order to make them work.
I have no idea where those spaces came from. Perhaps from the minds of the arrogant elite as representations of what they have upstairs?????
The following is the combination of my words from two messages to the
.NET is a distortion of reality one way or another and as .net can't be used to
c oding. pdf
/ hirts_repo rt1.0.pdf
d e/
d ing.0110.1. htm
i ty/egif_do cument.asp?docnum=430
i n.pdf
t ml
e /
/ KC.html
....
lightweight language list (the snips that I was responding to have been
removed and the responses have not been included either.)
The point is, the end user doesn't and shouldn't have to learn to think
like some specific programmer, but the field of programming and simply
"doing" things with computers can be quantized down to an overlay of
common action set used to "automate". And in a manner that anyone using a
computer can understand what a computer is, an automation machine with
programmed automations, which can include autocoding (usable by the end
user with end user resources.)
Meaning there is a common ground to recognize and use to bridge the
supposed gap. Slashdot has had quite a day that this thread is posted to.
On the Intellectual Property issues: (the following is not directed at
anyone specific - unless mentioned below - but rather general statements
form the other side [father physics and mother nature synergy] POV.)
There are some things that cannot be owned or otherwise constrained in
use.
Natural Law, Physical Phenomenon, Abstract Ideas and there are more such
things on the list as well, these are the top three.
The reasons such things cannot be IP constrained is becaue they are in
essence more powerful than human control can handle in a manner of
enforcement or adhearance to man applied constraints. Language itself is
something that grows so long as it is not constrained in use rights or
royality payments, etc..
Any man made system that attempts or claims to have or place constraints
on such items are in essence undermining itself by presenting the
illusion, a falseness of power to constrain others. No different than
witch hunts, master race, slavery, irrational inqusitions, etc., only
proving a lack of being in touch with hard reality by those of the system.
The idea of applying minor variations to that which qualifies as non-IP
ownable, in order to alter it enough to make it IP ownable, is what we
already have alot of and in no way does such distortions create any sort
of "improvements" to what simply is (no matter what hype and marketing
babel is added). Rather what the results are is something less in value
and usability, the addition of constraints that otherwise do not exist.
Distorting physical reality is not going to get you something better in
reality, but only an illusion, and excape from reality. And don't we
already know where this leads? Haven't we enough examples of seemingly
impossible to solve problems (as in computer programming) as a result of
such illusions?
"make people need you" is an MS business attitude and inherently it must
distort reality for this attitude to "pay off" in non-direct ways. In
comparision consider how the non-constrained TCP/IP protocal payed off in
direct ways. non-direct meaning money, direct meaning functionality and
use productivity that then helps to cause money to flow.
To Be Clear:
such it is also logically less than what can be and is defined by
physically reality. Physical reality does not state
create GPL software. That constraint is a man made one, made of only
thought.
But how aware people are to what is........illusion or reality????
Reality doesn't care whether or not you are aware of it, it still is and
keeps on keeping on. Obvious? Wasn't it obvious the earth revolved around
the sun? Perhaps that non-obvious "idea" should bave been patented and
hidden in a vault forever (so as to support the those then in "control"?)
Would MS or what other company would like to have a patent on air?
All you have to do is communicate it in a difficult to follow language
that sounds and looks intellectually good and the patent office will
figure rather than look stupid for not really understanding, if someone
wants to oppose it, they'll have to pay the patent office something like 2
grand $$$ to start the process. Or be challenged in court by the IP holder
of air, where the judge who breaths it will do the patent office employees
job. No sweat of the back of the patent office employee. But benefit to
those who can fool the majority?
If you really want to solve the problems with advancement constraints in
the field of programming, then remove the false constraints and stop
promoting them. Don't be skerd, for skerd begets skerd.
If you do not know the difference between a 3D data array or 3D computer
generated graphics and 3D reality of length, width and height, that you
were taught in grade school, then the matrix has you. Take a vacation,
become unplugged.
The talking of a distortion of reality and improving upon it, some here
and some there, until it is a representation of reality, is NOT an EXCUSE
or a sneaking up method to Patent Reality. But the attempts to do so is
the essence of the collision path some have identified regarding IP
directions and patent offices judgement difficulties.
Father Physics and Mother Nature always wins. Their synergy is always
faster and stronger than a distorted representation of it.
Language is only as useful as it's agreed upon use. To automate it's use
(as in programming languages, and translations of) is to insure it's
agreed upon use. I.E. to automate the adhearance to a given languages
do's, don'ts, and standards is to insure against bugs of those types.
Isn't the goal of programming to make bug free applications? Or is it to
sell upgrades based on bug existance and removal? Where is the illusion?
You cannot solve a general language problem by creating another language.
It's the Turing Halting problem and Godel's Theorem
But there is another approach, not a language but action set for
automation of language use and translation. The gears and bearing of
doing.
I suggest an open source software project to produce a core tool that
will allow an autocoding environment to be developed, allowed to evolve
in the open source software community and spirit of. I believe we can
overcome many of the problems that proprietary autocoding systems
inherently have (not to mention that existing autocoding systems appear
to be field/domain specific limited and that it may be possible to beat
this too.)
First:
Ghostscript PDF viewers for the following PDF links (if you don't already
have a PDF viewer) http://www.cs.wisc.edu/%7Eghost/
The following information represents what is probably the best of what is
available thru the Web on the subject of autocoding. (via google)
HIRTS DARP Working Group on Autocoding, 18th, 19th April 2000
http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/hise/darp/pdf/auto
(Brings up various issues which will help you focus in on what
"autocoding" is and what some of the issues to solve, are.)
The follow up, to the above, is:
May 8th thru 10th, 2001 "DARP HIRTS Workshop" paper by Jakob Engblom:
http://www.artes.uu.se/mobility/reports
(See pages 5-6 section 3.2.5 The Use of Tools in Aerospace)
In summary, Though autocoding is being used to some extent, it is a
future hope, since in general it has a bug density which is an order of
a magnititude lower than manual code. Point being is that this is
leading edge stuff, an opportunity for OSS to shine.
The above paper mentioned the SCADE autocoding product:
http://www.esterel-technologies.com/sca
(See code generator part of Product overview, Benefits, Toolset Features)
Autocoding as it applies to the medical industry:
http://www.ahima.org/journal/coding/co
(Since it was mentioned in a paper above, know it's a product of a
different nature.)
To help show why I believe OSS efforts can shine when it comes to such a
project as Autocoding:
QinetiQ - Analysis of the Impact of Open Source Software
http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/interoperabil
and From the Conference on the Public Domain, Nov. 9-11. 2001 at Duke Law
School "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm" by Yochai
Benkler: http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/Coase%27s_Pengu
It is also worth mentioning, to my undersandng, that the GNU efforts are
becomming more modular in nature and there is also the Hurd that is
modular or componet based from the ground up. This is a consistant and
fitting direction in accord with an open autocoding development and use
environment.
OK, so although this project is not AeroSpace "Mission Critical", it does
not hurt to make the quality target of the project to be of such high
standards. Actually, what I believe is that the core (as mentioned at the
beginning of this post) can be made to be of high quality itself, where
the rest, the coding knowledge base or what ever you want to call the
pre-autocode dictionary, will be of whatever quality it is created and
improved to be (as is the way and spirit of the OSS community.)
Where to start?
Automating what was done manually requires the identification of, and
ability to apply, the manual action set we use, but have the computer do
it. A USPTO Published comment introducing these identified actions and
suggestions of how they may be applied, including autocoding, is here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.h
The bottom part of my home page regarding the
"Virtial Interaction Configuration":
http://www.mindspring.com/~timru
An older paper on the Virtual Interaction Configuration:
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue
Why don't I do this shell and/or library myself?
I don't consider myself a programmer having the experience and knowledge
of better ways of coding somethings and as such I'm sure this core of
functionality can be coded better and faster than what I could do, but
there is what I have done, and that includes some python programming that
can be used and run to show/communicate some of the concepts of the
Virtual Interaction Configuration. And I can provide insight as to how it
may be used for such things as autocoding. Until recently, this past
week, I wasn't aware "autocoding" was an actual goal and practice of
anyone, though I have used the term for sever years now, and apparently,
given the above HIRTS DARP papers, my perspectives and thoughts on the
matter have been along the lines of what's been going on. Though I do
believe The VIC as a core can solve some of the problems facing commercial
autocoding packages (but this is something to get into later, when I can
communicate but showing).
Besides the VIC core, there is the pre-automation code base(s) to create
for whatever programming language(s) people want to use. And that's
something clearly beyond my ability to directly do, at least in the
beginning. Besides, there are many other things the VIC can be used for
besides autocoding. Consider it a tool for general automation...
At any rate I do believe Autocoding is a worthwhile goal that the GNU
community can shine at. And I think some of you, in consideration of the
HIRTS DARP link contents and the USPTO comment, will too.
There are nine action constants and by identifying them in what we do, by
super-imposing or overlaying these actions upon what we do, we can
identify the automation points. With this, we can automate what we do
thru computers, including programming. And what is programming but the
automation of complexity that is made up of simpler things, done so to
make the use and reuse of such complexity easy for the user.
What language you use is perhaps more a matter of interfacing to a process
that eventually is translated into machine readable form, binary machine
code. Mixing and matching languages for the best of effect shouldn't be a
problem as it eventually gets converted to the machine code common. But
understand that this is not a new language or a replacement of languages,
rather a tool set to allow the automation of language use. I.E. automating
the do's, don'ts and standards in any language as well as any dynamically
repeatable sequence of functionality.
Certainly everyone does understand in reading and responding to posts
here, they actually make use of all nine action (the crew of the
Nebachadnezzar [each persons ship]).
It's physics!
Lets see now (using the metaphors of the movie "The Matrix"):
Switch (AI - alternate/activate interface) - start and stop, change
interfaces - Uh, start up Web Browser/newsreader/email client and connect.
Go to group, thread....
Apoc (PK - Place Keeper) - keep track of where you are - Pick up where
you left off on the thread..
Tank (OI - Obtain Input - Output to-> Input) - get input - read with eyes.
Mouse (IP - InPut set) - input from - internet and monitor
Dozer (OP - OutPut set) - push output to - via keyboard/mouse to Mailing
list posting.
Neo (SF - Sequence stufF) - one step at a time - damn this non-polyphonic
qwerty keyboard and mouse...
Morpheus (IQ - Intelligence Quotient) - what's the meaning of the post
I'm reading, what the meaning I want to respond with - within the (KE'd)
constraints of
Trinity (ID - IDentify) - identify posters and forum - hey there is one
by ____ in ____ forum, now I know to be (KE'd) constrained as to how I
respond.
Cypher (KE - Knowledge Enable)- constraints to apply to Morpheus (IQ)
meanings and Trinity (ID) poster named _____ and _____ forum and ____
topic.
Of course the three agents represent the three fundamental concepts of
INPUT, PROCESSING, OUTPUT. The nine above are an expansion upon them. Just
as in physics, the more details you have the greater the control.
Maybe it'd be a worthwhile exercise to ask others to give an example of
their use of the nine, in using computer or other non-computer related
things done?
There is something else that makes such a configuration of functionality
even more useful, beyond just programming and that is to supply the user
with the three primary User Interfaces. The CommandLine Interface, The GUI
and the side door to application/functionality external control. And
example that may be seen as the Amiga Arexx "Ports" found pretty much
standard in amiga applications, libraries and devices. But lets just call
it the Automation Programming Interface (API), as the general concept of
this "side door" exist in many different flavors and limitations usually
unfriendly in standard an ease of use.
But with all three accessible in a user friendly way..... Well if you
eliminat one of the primary colors of light (RGB) then the remaining
combination is far more limiting than -1/3 due to synergy of the three.
The same door of possibilities exist with the three primary user
interfaces.
If interested in helping, it's an open project, let me know.
If interested in using such a tool, then say so here, let others know.
what the world really wants
Preventitive healthcare is a common concept. So why isn't preventitive warfare?
Consumer Deception. Of which is so deep that even now people are being fooled by it, even here on slashdot.
They go on to state "This would destroy Windows desktop operating
systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"
Ends doesn't justify means???
Maybe they should have thought of that before the committed crimes????
What if MS never got away with any of the wrong stuff they have done?
where would there OS be today? Would it be a stable and consistant
development platform? Or would we have something much better?
How do you undo all the damage MS has done, put back in place all the
companies that MS wrongfully distroyed and harmed?
Fact is you can't undo the damage.
So what moron wants the same unfairness to not be done to MS?
MS deserves to the full brunt of their own medicine. Only the Legal system
for with Bill seems to know all about, doesn't really know how to right
things.
MS really shouldn't be allowed to continue in business. In some
industries if you are caught doing the wrong things you are kicked out,
and not allowed to do business ever again in that industry.
In fact given MS's persistance of doing wrong things, removing them from
the industry is the only fair way to deal with them.
The question is: what to do with their customer base?
As a going out of business sale, the proceeds is to finance the conversion
of their products to open source Public Domain. Seeing how they took so
much from the Public with their deceptions.
If you lie, if you cheat, you lose!!!
If you murder someone, you can end up on death row.
Problem is that the laws just aren't tough enough for the computer industry,
and as such it lets to many crooks run the industry and entrap everyone by not
giving them a reasonable alternative.
Monies and property from drug busts go to re-enforce what?
Here in computer industry crime, it should go to make criminal activities simply
not worth it. Via, supporting GPL, Public Commonwealth of computer technology.
Autocoding project proposal
If you cannot tell the difference between a three deminsional data array or 3D computer graphic from
3 dimensional Reality, then the Matrix has you. If you are confused about the three deminsions of length,
width and height, then the matrix has you and you don't know it.
But seriously, see the code for what it is, super-impose the nine action constants upon what you do in
coding to find the control points for automating.
As an example of these nine action constants, everybody uses them all when
comming to slashdot, reading and posting comments.
It's physics!
Lets see now:
Switch (AI - alternate/activate interface) - start and stop, change
interfaces - Uh, start up Web Browser and connect. Go to slashdot,
newsarticle, thread....
Apoc (PK - Place Keeper) - keep track of where you are - Pick up where
you left off on the thread..
Tank (OI - Obtain Input - Output to-> Input) - get input - read with eyes.
Mouse (IP - InPut set) - input from - internet and monitor
Dozer (OP - OutPut set) - push output to - via keyboard/mouse to
Slashdot comment posting
Neo (SF - Sequence stufF) - one step at a time - damn this non-polyphonic
qwerty keyboard and mouse...
Morpheus (IQ - Intelligence Quotient) - what's the meaning of the post
I'm reading, what the meaning I want to respond with - within the
(KE'd) constraints of
Trinity (ID - IDentify) - identify posters and forum - hey there is one
by ____ in ____ forum, now I know to be (KE'd) constrained as to
how I respond.
Cypher (KE - Knowledge Enable)- constraints to apply to Morpheus (IQ)
meanings and Trinity (ID) poster named _____ and _____ article.
And the great thing about open source is?
Nobody can stop improvements..... But getting things layed out, even if wrong.....
It's easier to improve then to originate.
:)
There seems to be this intended but mistakenly wrong theme that Linux is
...... so on and so on...
dying here.
Where the fact is that Linux was much more dead last year and the year
before and so on and so on, then it is today as it enters more and more
government supported uses and propogates into different types of consumer
devices and
Linux is spreading further and further and just because there are cases
where it appears to not have made investors money doesn't mean that it's
not generating value. For if it wasn't generating value, then it certainly
wouldn't be growing and extending into new areas and uses. Value doesn't
have to be in the direct stockmarket holder form of money.
It seems to me that the abstraction manipulation methodology of applying
selective connotations in marketing practices is heavy at work here. In a
place where you'd think there is to be more naturally supportive of linux
community it seems to be exposing Microsoft viral infilteration of not
only Slashdot but given article of recent, perhaps the OSDN organization.
And to think MS accused Linux, or more specifically the GPL as being a
Viral License. Typical act of making a claim against another and then
commiting it yourself. As was perhaps first done by Bill Gates yelling
"Piracy" and making TIME Magizine front Cover for it.
What of Corel, really?
They are a business for profit and as any successful business which also
contribute to Open Source Software and even to GPL and GNU software knows,
you generally don't make it your main business. Perhaps the rule should be
10% to commonwealth baseline development?
Many have said support is where you make your money with linux, yet a
Corel employee mentions here that their Linux based products resulted in
more call for support that they were not charging for (due to selling
closed source linux based products for profit which included free support.)
Perhaps they needed to get everything set on the same page, rather than
mixing pages from closed source practices and open sources practices?
Corel has for years been struggling and thru various partnerships. That is
a clear indication that it's not a Linux or other product problems but
rather an internal business control problem, probably one called
management.
This case was supposed to be about how MS has damaged public interest. So now that the public has been given a chance to speak, who is it but corporation that are brought out into the spotlight....
What's wrong with this picture?
Don't USE Windows or Microsoft products.
I realize that Slashdot is being composed of more and more pro MS supporters.
Proof is in the lack of alternatives being presented in theory or real life.
Why is there a need to upgrade???
Fixing bugs is one thing and even that should be presented with user knowledge
but changing software to handle new features is a bit leading consumers wearing blindfolds.
Next thing you know, or don't, is that your living in a pod energizing the Bill matrix.
Extracted from you bank account once or more a month.
So stop using the crap and help to build something better.
Or is that to difficult?
"After half a century of research, computer scientists have yet to agree on a single answer to most issues of programming language design.
Autocoding - where the language doesn't much matter, so long as the programming concepts are accessible
Consider the group this was done on. Is it not without some bias?
Also given the current programming methodology, where the tools are
difficult to use by the typical user..... Oh, wait a minute...
Programming is the act of automating complexity that is made up of simpler
things. It is done in order to make repeatable things easy for the user to
do, again and again.
Programming can automate any field, inclusing human balance and movement
(segway) but for some strange reason automating th efield of programming
is not something yet to have reached even basic automations for the
typical user.
YEP. the research is greatly biased and based on software development
methodology that does not include many people.
There was a time when hackers were young and hobbists, that's a fact!
The only thing that has changed is they have grown up.
Will the next poll in 20 years be oriented and favorable to gray hair and
retirement funding?
Maybe it's time to change the software development methodology so as to
include user...... No, It is Time to do this. No Maybe About It!
The software industry need to pull it head out of it's ass and give credit
where it is genuinely deserved.
When you have an industry asking the consumers "where do you want to go
today?" What is really being said is that we of the computer industry have
our head up our ass so bad that when don't know what to do next and we
want you to tell us in this poll that only we will see the results of (IE>
MS vs. DOJ - no more public information via the media, once the public
comments have been entered....)
And what we in the computer industry are going to do with the result is to
turn around and tell you that you are stupid and we are smart as we then
empliment what you told us to but as though it our genuis.
It is out complete intent to abuse the fuck out of the consumers and to
entrap them into our game of taking from the consumer everything we can,
for free....unless we can do an MS and even get them dumb funking user to
pay us for their ideas and our bugs.
The computer industry doesn't own anything of any value that they didn't
steal from someone else.
And to insure the competition stays cntrolled, keep the software
production tools really really stupid.....
Programming is the act of automating complexity that is made up of simpler
things. It is done so in order to make repeatable use easy for the user.
Interesting how the Software industry can't seem to automate their own
field but can automate any other.
The computer industry is a very Consumer Entrapment Abusive industry and
it is made up of those who practice the art of abstraction manipulation.
Not at all unlike the profession of laywers, which explains why they seem
to get along so damn well with that profession.
But all of this is going to change, as a genuine science of software
states that auto-coding, the automation of code generation, is very
possible and has been for a long time. It's only just been avoided, due to
what can be summed up as job security.
I'm really tired of people that claim they are some sort of expert or
another telling me what I want or don't want.
I want linux on the Desk top and as far as I can tell it got a hell of
a better user and use base going on than any other OS right now. Imagine
when Linux finally makes it to the desk top (in the way people think it
should - beside MS cronnies that can't ever see it as a viable desk top
OS)... When linux does make it to the desk top it wil be in a position
with such a broad standard in application or usage that it will be far
more solid than any other OS.
Then Again, If the Hurd group ever figures out the "Solid Core" and
automate user production of custom servers... There will already be the
GNU software base most preceive as Linux (Linux is just the kernel!!!)
So yeah!, Maybe Linux won't make it to the Desk top as others preceive.
BUT GNU WILL MAKE IT, One way or the other!!!
MS cronnies are out in force! Aren't they!?
Programming is the act automating complexity that is made up of simpler
things. So it's really all about automation and with the right automation
tools and enough automated, you'll get your by-product illusion of
Artificial Intelligence, plenty enough to pass the illusion test called
the Turing Test.
A.I. - nothing is naturally that stupid.
And ever rule has it's exceptions. In this case it's those who think it's
right to claim it's not just an illusion. You know, like a con artist.
And isn't it strange that the day after public comment closed that this would happen?
So the Public is not allowed to know what the Public says?
Something is seriously wrong with this picture
The GPL is designed to generate a common wealth of software, an
expanding base that does drive competition in the commercial market,
regardless of the licenses being used in the market.
On one end of the spectrum of licenses you have the growth of this base of
Common Wealth code.
On the other end you have the extream of closed down tight proprietary
code that is done so as a matter of milking it for every penny you can get
out of it, profits focused to a few.
If all code was proprietary, you can be certain that we would not be
anywhere near as advanced in this technology as we are today.
The BSD License doesn't help the Common Wealth code base as much as GPL
does. But the GPL doesn't help the proprietary code base any more than
vice versa.
So, do you build upon Common Wealth or slow it's advancement thru such
licenses support some other point in the spectrum?
In time it will become clear that compromises such as what the BSD license
allows, will act counter productive to the GPL objective/goal. In time,
thru the compromise, the GPL will become heavely constrained by those who
use the compromise to place barriers to advancement in front of the GPL.
Consider a piece of BSD licensed code, open to be improved until someone
comes along and pulls it behind the curtain and slaps patented piece of
software on it, effectively preventing anyone else from advancing that
software in that direction in an open source manner.
It should be worth noting that IBM is the Leading US patent holder, being
granted more patents a year than any other company or party, in the US.
This particular story regarding Mono is a good indication of....Ok it's ok
to make the engines available for free but we are gonna own all the tires
and gas.....and these engines won't be able to go anywhere without our
permission, and that's for sale.
RMS sees possibilities and then applies human greed to the equasion to
determine what to expect. I now this because I do it too, and it's always
right.
So Sure RMS seems to be extream, because when dealing with the devil,
there is no such thing as compromise. Only an illusion to lead you to
think so, untill it's to late for you to do anything about it.
I claim Prior art!
Perhaps I'm uneducated about what all is out there currently. But it seems to me that with a common base of GNU, Open Source Software, etc.. The building of the Public Common Wealth of computer operating systems and the benefit this is providing to everyone around the world, that there should be some sort of Sponsorship type of program or organization that would help to streamline the searching for and finding, the matching up of corporate sponsors to software projects.
Would it be so bad that in return the Sponsor gets a mention in the source code and perhaps even in any "about this program" information box or command line option?
A old paper of mine that might generate some ideas
Yeah, and they do an excellent job of providing us all with usenet archives +++, free of charge!
I'm a bit confused here. Didn't the GNU community (what is pretty much what debian is) show it's openness to other kernels when it accepted the linux kernel while continuing on with the original GNU Hurd system? Even knowing it would slow down the progress of the Hurd?
I'm confused because the listy of reasons seem to suggest that it was in accepting the Hurd that states Debian is open to other kernels.
And even the Hurd is open to different micro-kernels! Mach and L4 are current micro kernel use efforts.