"NP-complete: a class of problems that all other problems in NP reduce to. One of the biggest open questions in computer science is determining if any NP-complete problem does not reduce to any problem in P (then any NP-hard problem would have any easy solution...)"
Hehe, I suppose the first thing to do is to reduce all the computer science babeling down to a minimal set of irreducable words but open ended enough to handle all the CS babeling before it got reduced. Once you get the Abstraction Manipulation Machinery (computer) straightened out then you'll have a correct foundation (digital tool) upon which to solve NP-complete in the digital environment.
Yes, NP-complete is solvable, once you get the tool right.
Actually Computer Science does exist in the form of "Abstraction Manipulation Machinery". Math is just a subset of all possible abstractions. It is no big deal that anyone can define an abstraction, to give an abstraction a definition, a meaning. But the machinery we call computers, that we use to manipulate abstractions... Well you do need to understand the phycial phenomenon of the natural laws of abstraction manipulation in order to build such a device better (Meaning what we have now and our general population ability to use, is in direct relationship to the CS understanding and honest application of Abstraction manipulation mechanics.) And CS hasn't done a very good job of understanding the physical laws of abstraction manipulation, and/or they are not being very honest about it.
NINE Natural laws of Abstraction Manipulation Mechanics (to be found within text body)
Getting priorities straight, the programming aspect of the stated goal is seconday to the primary objective of the unnamed area of scientific (semi?) research.
It should be Obvious that it's a matter of narrowing down the search by using constraints consistant with the primary objective within the field of the seconday constraints of programming.
But it's probably not obvious because CS in general hasn't quantized the set of "actions constants". A failure so far in CS to do or even be motivated to do. For to do so would certainly lower the general pay scale of the software industry to the point of being reasonably inline with workers in all other industries.
In fact, I'd say programming in general would then become more a sub field item, like the ability to type at a reasonable speed in applying for an office position regardless of what the hiring company does. Leaving genuine software engineers free of the psuedo software engineering majority, to really engineer high values to be used by acts of applying the "sub field item" of programming.
My initial gut reaction was thinking this writer also programs or has some vested interest in the Computer Science. A reaction of seeing an example of Arrogance and Ignorance in effort to claim CS IP rights over all industries and fields of science. But in reality CS hasn't yet removed the mystical magical witchcraft source-ary of it's fabricated over-complexity to really know any better. 3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
You seemed to have forgotten to mention what you posted is copyrighted by the New York Times. Give credit where it is due! Hey, even better, if you really had to be directly redundant, why not just post the link, like the slashdot article did?
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
All Science is a product of the mind, and as such the common ground is a matter of understanding the mind in what we do in all that we do, regardless of what and where.
Don'tcha jus wonder what all dees comments are gonna do to address the real is-sues?
Oh course not! Who'd really want to ad dress it?! 3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Does anyone really read all the posts/replies that are posted to/. ? that is besides those who are gathering the response polls/opinion totals? 3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
The fundamental problem is one of computer science. Had Computer Science not gotten off course from pure science then the foundation of software would not be one where such a thing as the "software crisis" would have existed for more than a decade.
But because it does, the foundation is unfair and this results in alot of the problems going on today.
MS, it could have been anyone else (that was a game player like Bill), simply was there first with the idea of getting the most software to market (disregarding quality). Whole also believing the way to get people to come back is to make them need MS, for upgrades bug fixes, etc.
Had Computer Science done it job then the difficulty of making software wouldn't exist. That Software production can and should have been alot easier where the best software would come from the best software authors/artist.
It should be enough that most everyone realizes that MS software isn't of the best in originality and quality, to see that there is a problem somewhere that prevents the best. And that somewhere is in how software is produced in such a way that it is difficult. Sorta like doing math with roman numerals, where it should be more along the lines of the decimal system we use today.
Is this possible? Absolutely!!!!!
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html
Maybe the problem people have here is along the same lines of how people had problems with accepting the concept of zero, of nothing actually having value.
T.Rue.
If you want to beat MS, there is a way to do it outside of the courts, but it means a cange in the way software is done and it;s pretty much been verified that programmers in general have resistance to such, just as I'm sure those who dealt with Roman Numerals did. Outside of those who wanted to move business forward that is.
But wait till they clairify it even more. What they are really getting at, beating around the bush, is the fact that they don't want the so call "software crisis" solved. Because in doing that the whole foundation upon which MS has built it's empire will crumble. But Ma, if the software industry can't keep up with the task to be done then why not make the whole process of programming easy enough for everyone? Yep, it's most certainly possible!!!!!!! 3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Ever wonder how a massive database as usenet (deja/google +) and web history (www.archive.org) could become a financial asset? Well when you can place it on inexpensive mass storage media and sell copies for a little more than media cost, so as to afford the continuation of recording and making free public internet access....
ACC is simply playing off of research found elsewhere. lets' see now...The Oxygen Project.. Raw Computation... Scientific American August 1999...page 62 shows a graphic that looks very similiar to the graphics of the TCAP.... Come to think of it, I even wondered if Transmeta hasn't also played off this.
http://www.caga.lcs.mit.edu/raw/
But on more topic related comment.....This sort of memory compacity would certainly justify interest in large databases like Deja/Google and http://www.archive.org.... when you consider the possibility of selling terabyte copies of usenet history for very little while using the income to financially support the continued recording and public access. 3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Beyond the disconnected punch cards and paper tapes the first electronicly connected User Interface was logically the keyboard. Where versatility came as a result of and matter of character sequencing on the command line.
In time the GUI became the next and still logical in the evolution of User Interfaces. It provided less versatility but greater ease of use by those being introduced to computer for the first time.
But what both of these User Interfaces have in common is the fact that they are both based on the use of icons or symbols. The GUI having less versatility then the keyboard but greater ease of use. And thru various methods the sequencing versatility of the keyboard, character sequences could be automated or prewritten and attached to a GUI icon.
But then there is the incredably slow evolution of the logical third User Interface. The interface that completes the natural triplet of core user interface set. Not so unlike the value of having all three primary colors to mix paint or light color from. Removing any one of these primary colors greatly reduces possibilities.
There are various speices, if you will, of this third user interface. Often it's spoke of in term of the programmers APIs but command line piping and Interprocess communication or messaging are other labels. But overall, this third user interface is that of having the ability to send a running program or function library or other functionality such as DOS, commands from an external to its operation, common location.
As an example, the Commodore Amiga evolved with an AREXX port usually included in programs and libraries, etc.. NOTE: it's not AREXX here but the fact of this side door for external control exist as a standard, even in some programs that didn't require AREXX to be running.
So the three User Interfaces Are:
1) keyboard (ASII)command line interface
2) Graphical User Interface, typical mouse access
3) The side door to functionality control and
integration.
The keyboard or manual character sequencer can address both the commandline environment and the side door. And it can also be used to define a character sequence automation attached to a GUI icon that triggers a control communication to a specified side door.
Of course there are other possibilities, as is obvious in the analogy of primary color triplets.
But then there is even more that can be accomplished once these three user interfaces are established on a system.
Dynamic integrated automation can evolve. From allowing the user to easily access thru a consistant interface, the details or descriptions of functionality... to making their own definition to extend their systems dynamic automation ability. Providing the user with the ability to automate anything they do over and over again, regardless of how many programs or other functionality is used in the automation.
Now isn't this really what computers are all about? The ability to define and activate the automation of complex functionality sequencing?
Programmers do it all the time, that's what the point of programming is, to automate complexity to the point of being much simpler to activate then doing manually.
In fact with such a general purpose automation tool being used thru the three user interfaces it would be possible to automate the do's, don'ts and standards of any program language as well as any functionality inclusion that can be repeated, even dynamically.
And as the automation continues it compiles and executes the generated code, etc...
But what I have found is that the psuedo programming industry doesn't want to really remove the foundation on whch companies like Microsoft stand. For MS was built on the premise that programming is a difficult and complicatd thing to do. Identified and labeled in the 60s, as the "software crisis" from which it probably evolved in the 50's out of IBM causing a distraction in genuine computer science along with the governments war decription/encryption efforts.
Sad to realize the computer industry got a major start due to the practice of hiding and trying to see hidden communications.
An apparent practice that seems inbreed to the point of...... well where does inbreeding usually lead?
That's going to end. Just call me Neo!
Yep! the informant is real!
Each one of the character represent an action. Something we all do. Actions that can be programmed and used to automate dynamically.
How bad do you really want the next advancement in User Interfaces? Bad enough to become unplugged from the psuedo programming system, and that which supports it?
Considering the mix of open and closed source direction of Amiga Corps....
On 03-Jul-00 08:18:14 Pyloo wrote: > Timothy Rue wrote: >> >> On 01-Jul-00 16:05:45 Steve Duff >> wrote: >> SD> Jason Compton wrote in message >> SD> news:8jl1ja$1km$4@flood.xnet.com... >> >> Steve Duff wrote: >> >> : Oh, Bill made a bit of a slip when he bragged about the >> >> : 'installed base of 7 million' Amigas. >> >> >> >> An ORDER OF MAGNITUDE isn't a slip, that's a bald-faced lie. >> >> SD> Well, I was putting a positive spin on it... >> >> SD> Then again, lies are like oxygen in the computer world -- >> SD> companies seem to need them to live. Like Apple and its >> SD> 'installed base of 25 million' Macs. Or like Bill Gates saying >> SD> that Microsoft 'innovates' and makes 'great software.' One >> SD> could quibble about which of these lies is closer to the >> SD> truth, but they all stretch the long arm of credibility right >> out of its socket. >> >> SD> It would be nice if the Amiga world could set a better >> SD> example, but I understand Bill's desire not to seem like such >> SD> a small-fry. >> >> SD> -- >> >> SD> Best; >> SD> Steve Duff Team *AMIGA* >> >> SD> A3000T, A4000T -- very nicely equipped >> >> I thought your post was worth repeating! >> >> Cept one small things or two. Something about tired legacy and >> *not* being a small-fry only by getting on the band wagon everyone >> else is on, called dishonesty. The term oxymoron comes to mind. >> >> Desert of the Real, is because of why?
> It is said that it is the ability to lie which allowed us evolve > beyond our cousins, the apes...
> What do you expect from the human species, this being the case?
> Pyloo.
It was also said and published that traveling faster than 35 miles per hour you would sufficate.
and I believe someone even published something with loads of errors in what people said.
I recall something about computers being said by one well known in the computer industry.... Something that in hindsight is obviously in great error....now if I can only remember what it was...
Perhaps you or somone else here can help? Do you know of anything such as this?
Hmmm, then there was someone at the patent office who said everything that can be invented has already been invented. I believe their position was that of director of the Patent office. This was before the advent of the computer I believe.
Hmmmm, and about the missing link between ape and man..... Do you know what this is?
Perhaps the ability to lie and chosing to is only a symptom of not advancing enough.
Thomas Edison (General Electric) said AC power would kill. So the governing system wanted to execute a prisoner and tried to with AC power.
The reason Thomas Edison said this is because He believed DC power was better but that Westinghouse was competing with his more limited DC power plants, by using AC power plants that could be wired for much further distance.
It's true that AC power can be more dangerious than DC but the execution attempt backfired on Thomas Edison intent to show AC was deadly and to risky for public use.
They had to electrocute (AC) the guy twice.
Most remember Thomas Edison for the light Bulb, not the phonograph or motion picture. And even fewer know about this execution history.
But as DC is oneway current, much like the oneway feeding of the computer industry. AC is beginning to challenge it enough that DC has become defensive and even attempts to make illegal the AC of open source and free software.
Some are even trying to mix the DC with AC......using diodes to block what they don't like while accepting what they can take for free themselves.
consider the changing market towards network applicances. perhaps this is not yet an estabished market, but in time, the time it takes to go thru appeals, it will become more certain which direction this new market is going.
The internet appliance market uses smaller, modular and stable(r) OSs. such as QNX. If this new market takes off the consumer and many small business desktop system market will be replaced with such internet appliances.
In this event MS could present a bad arguement in appeal, so to lose, both the case and the responsibility to continue and support the bloated OS that many use. By passing it off to a company that cannot survive in the new market, MS effectively disconnects themselves from this boat anchor bloat. And for the unhappy users (a not so small number) of the bloat, MS can even pass off the blame to blaming those who opposed them, including the DOJ.
On the other hand, should the internet appliance market not do so well, leaving a need to still support desktops, then in light of the integration everyone else will be doing with OSs and internet connectivity, MS will have a good arguement to present in appeal.
argueing double standards being imposed by the DOJ.
What's this got to do with the topic here? Keeping IE with the OS side greatly reduces this choice MS must know exist in the legal process, for them.
And as a little note: MS knows there are those who do not like them and that this dislike is not short term. Should the Internet appliance market take off and MS loses appeal, MS opposers might be hapy until MS says to them, you cannot double jebordy me, you got what you wanted. And this as the remaining part of MS still practices anti-trust (such practice is not something defined in paper but of human actions).
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html There are some things you cannot patent. Physical Phenomenon, Natural Law and abstract ideas. 3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
"Cannot" based laws NO LONGER Work!
on
At The Crossroads
·
· Score: 1
Jeez, the problem is in the Damn rules CANNOT, YOU CANNOT THE YOU CANNOT THAT PAY ME AND MAYBE I LET YOU CAN.
What ever the hell happened to supporting and encouraging those who make advancements instead of playing a game about hpow much you can say CANNOT to YOU AND YOU AND YOU, BUT YOU OVER THERE BLA BLA BLA, anybody can ramble like kants, it's all cant's anyway.
BUT WHO REALLY CAN ANYMORE? Let's play this pathetic CANNOT game until nobody can do anything, CHECKMATE!
Lets' run it into the fucking ground, until somebody wakes the fuck up and realizes, PHYSICS AND NATURE DO NOT SAY CANNOT ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUSH AS MAN AND HIS GAME PLAYING (he who has the most IP Cannot wins)
Fucking pay those who produce good things, pay them to produce more and stop fucking playing the bully of the sand box brat. 3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
An error in being IP "cannot" based and the resistance to this of open source freeware, neither are right but do help to balance things out some in the statement that's being said in all of it.
People should not be falsely constraind from doing/creating good things, but those before them, for which they stand on such prior work, deserve proper reward. As those who build upon such work will one day be the base of still others....
"CAN" Based IP laws need to be developed
This can happen at the government level but may need to happen first at the development level, such as thru something along the lines of the GPL - an agreement or contract. Once this build up momentum then government regulations are more likely to change.
As a member of the human race, I do not appriciate such false constraints placed upon what we all can do to improve the value and experience of life. Who is to say a cure for something like cancer is not possible because IP law says you cannot do it?
The real problem is in having "Cannot" based IP laws. It's what fuels all the friction and this is NOT efficient in light of the ever increasing rate of our advancements.
Great! I was going to post something like about how this issue is of argueing over what to make the road out of and never getting to travel on it because it never gets built. So to keep pace with development tools - AUTO-CODING development environments that lend to the ability to do more than just auto-coding. There are the do's don't's and standards of programming in any language for any system that can certainly be automated. and just as this is possible, it is possible to automate any other reacurring action set in the development process.
So the question is how? The answer is simple. When you get right down to things, there are nine things we do, nine action constants, that can be made into a configuration of computer functionality that lends itself to developing such auto-coding environments, as well as other things. I've posted this before and I could give a USPTO URL that contains this information in.doc format which you'd then have to DL alot more and then look at just one small part of that.doc. Instead: http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html
Maybe it's just to simple for most to accept?? 3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Very Matrixy, probably gave the Wachowskis inspiration, considering it was the 1997 World Animation Celebration Awards for Best Theatrical Film and Best Director of a theatrical feature film.
Hmmm, the matrix Nebachadnezzar and it 9 crew members fighting against three agents. see: http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/matrix-squared.h tml for the relationships to what we do.
to make this as brief a post as possible, things are probably simpler than thought to be
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html
Do consider the references. The sixth can be replaced with "The Tao Of Physics" by Fritjof Capra which is probably easier to find than the reference given. And it does have on page 229 the diagram refered to.
Slashdot Mirror
"NP-complete: a class of problems that all other problems in NP reduce to. One of the biggest open questions in computer science is determining if any NP-complete problem does not reduce to any problem in P (then any NP-hard problem would have any easy solution...)"
Hehe, I suppose the first thing to do is to reduce all the computer science babeling down to a minimal set of irreducable words but open ended enough to handle all the CS babeling before it got reduced. Once you get the Abstraction Manipulation Machinery (computer) straightened out then you'll have a correct foundation (digital tool) upon which to solve NP-complete in the digital environment.
Yes, NP-complete is solvable, once you get the tool right.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Actually Computer Science does exist in the form of "Abstraction Manipulation Machinery". Math is just a subset of all possible abstractions. It is no big deal that anyone can define an abstraction, to give an abstraction a definition, a meaning. But the machinery we call computers, that we use to manipulate abstractions... Well you do need to understand the phycial phenomenon of the natural laws of abstraction manipulation in order to build such a device better (Meaning what we have now and our general population ability to use, is in direct relationship to the CS understanding and honest application of Abstraction manipulation mechanics.) And CS hasn't done a very good job of understanding the physical laws of abstraction manipulation, and/or they are not being very honest about it.
NINE Natural laws of Abstraction Manipulation Mechanics (to be found within text body)
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Getting priorities straight, the programming aspect of the stated goal is seconday to the primary objective of the unnamed area of scientific (semi?) research.
It should be Obvious that it's a matter of narrowing down the search by using constraints consistant with the primary objective within the field of the seconday constraints of programming.
But it's probably not obvious because CS in general hasn't quantized the set of "actions constants". A failure so far in CS to do or even be motivated to do. For to do so would certainly lower the general pay scale of the software industry to the point of being reasonably inline with workers in all other industries.
In fact, I'd say programming in general would then become more a sub field item, like the ability to type at a reasonable speed in applying for an office position regardless of what the hiring company does. Leaving genuine software engineers free of the psuedo software engineering majority, to really engineer high values to be used by acts of applying the "sub field item" of programming.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
My initial gut reaction was thinking this writer also programs or has some vested interest in the Computer Science. A reaction of seeing an example of Arrogance and Ignorance in effort to claim CS IP rights over all industries and fields of science. But in reality CS hasn't yet removed the mystical magical witchcraft source-ary of it's fabricated over-complexity to really know any better.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
You seemed to have forgotten to mention what you posted is copyrighted by the New York Times. Give credit where it is due! Hey, even better, if you really had to be directly redundant, why not just post the link, like the slashdot article did?
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
All Science is a product of the mind, and as such the common ground is a matter of understanding the mind in what we do in all that we do, regardless of what and where.
A NEO overview of becomming aware!
Knowledge Navigational Mapping and the Virtual Interaction Configuration
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Litgation in Computer Science
Do you suppose this means all fields of science are going to end up in court, due non-preformance?
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Don'tcha jus wonder what all dees comments are gonna do to address the real is-sues? Oh course not! Who'd really want to ad dress it?!
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Does anyone really read all the posts/replies that are posted to /. ? that is besides those who are gathering the response polls/opinion totals?
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
The fundamental problem is one of computer science.
Had Computer Science not gotten off course from pure
science then the foundation of software would not be
one where such a thing as the "software crisis" would
have existed for more than a decade.
But because it does, the foundation is unfair and this
results in alot of the problems going on today.
MS, it could have been anyone else (that was a game
player like Bill), simply was there first with the idea
of getting the most software to market (disregarding
quality). Whole also believing the way to get people to
come back is to make them need MS, for upgrades bug fixes,
etc.
Had Computer Science done it job then the difficulty of
making software wouldn't exist. That Software production
can and should have been alot easier where the best
software would come from the best software authors/artist.
It should be enough that most everyone realizes that MS
software isn't of the best in originality and quality,
to see that there is a problem somewhere that prevents
the best. And that somewhere is in how software is produced
in such a way that it is difficult. Sorta like doing math
with roman numerals, where it should be more along the lines
of the decimal system we use today.
Is this possible? Absolutely!!!!!
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html
Maybe the problem people have here is along the same lines
of how people had problems with accepting the concept of
zero, of nothing actually having value.
T.Rue.
If you want to beat MS, there is a way to do it outside of
the courts, but it means a cange in the way software is done
and it;s pretty much been verified that programmers in general
have resistance to such, just as I'm sure those who dealt with
Roman Numerals did. Outside of those who wanted to move business
forward that is.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
But wait till they clairify it even more. What they are really getting at, beating around the bush, is the fact that they don't want the so call "software crisis" solved. Because in doing that the whole foundation upon which MS has built it's empire will crumble. But Ma, if the software industry can't keep up with the task to be done then why not make the whole process of programming easy enough for everyone? Yep, it's most certainly possible!!!!!!!
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Ever wonder how a massive database as usenet (deja/google +) and
web history (www.archive.org) could become a financial asset? Well
when you can place it on inexpensive mass storage media and sell
copies for a little more than media cost, so as to afford the
continuation of recording and making free public internet access....
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
ACC is simply playing off of research found elsewhere. lets' see now...The Oxygen Project..
.... when you consider
Raw Computation... Scientific American August 1999...page 62 shows a graphic that looks
very similiar to the graphics of the TCAP.... Come to think of it, I even wondered if
Transmeta hasn't also played off this.
http://www.caga.lcs.mit.edu/raw/
But on more topic related comment.....This sort of memory compacity would certainly justify
interest in large databases like Deja/Google and http://www.archive.org
the possibility of selling terabyte copies of usenet history for very little while
using the income to financially support the continued recording and public access.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Beyond the disconnected punch cards and paper tapes the first electronicly connected User Interface was logically the keyboard. Where versatility came as a result of and matter of character sequencing on the command line.
In time the GUI became the next and still logical in the evolution of User Interfaces. It provided less versatility but greater ease of use by those being introduced to computer for the first time.
But what both of these User Interfaces have in common is the fact that they are both based on the use of icons or symbols. The GUI having less versatility then the keyboard but greater ease of use. And thru various methods the sequencing versatility of the keyboard, character sequences could be automated or prewritten and attached to a GUI icon.
But then there is the incredably slow evolution of the logical third User Interface. The interface that completes the natural triplet of core user interface set. Not so unlike the value of having all three primary colors to mix paint or light color from. Removing any one of these primary colors greatly reduces possibilities.
There are various speices, if you will, of this third user interface. Often it's spoke of in term of the programmers APIs but command line piping and Interprocess communication or messaging are other labels. But overall, this third user interface is that of having the ability to send a running program or function library or other functionality such as DOS, commands from an external to its operation, common location.
As an example, the Commodore Amiga evolved with an AREXX port usually included in programs and libraries, etc.. NOTE: it's not AREXX here but the fact of this side door for external control exist as a standard, even in some programs that didn't require AREXX to be running.
So the three User Interfaces Are:
1) keyboard (ASII)command line interface
2) Graphical User Interface, typical mouse access
3) The side door to functionality control and
integration.
The keyboard or manual character sequencer can address both the commandline environment and the side door. And it can also be used to define a character sequence automation attached to a GUI icon that triggers a control communication to a specified side door.
Of course there are other possibilities, as is obvious in the analogy of primary color triplets.
But then there is even more that can be accomplished once these three user interfaces are established on a system.
Dynamic integrated automation can evolve. From allowing the user to easily access thru a consistant interface, the details or descriptions of functionality... to making their own definition to extend their systems dynamic automation ability. Providing the user with the ability to automate anything they do over and over again, regardless of how many programs or other functionality is used in the automation.
Now isn't this really what computers are all about? The ability to define and activate the automation of complex functionality sequencing?
Programmers do it all the time, that's what the point of programming is, to automate complexity to the point of being much simpler to activate then doing manually.
In fact with such a general purpose automation tool being used thru the three user interfaces it would be possible to automate the do's, don'ts and standards of any program language as well as any functionality inclusion that can be repeated, even dynamically.
And as the automation continues it compiles and executes the generated code, etc...
But what I have found is that the psuedo programming industry doesn't want to really remove the foundation on whch companies like Microsoft stand. For MS was built on the premise that programming is a difficult and complicatd thing to do. Identified and labeled in the 60s, as the "software crisis" from which it probably evolved in the 50's out of IBM causing a distraction in genuine computer science along with the governments war decription/encryption efforts.
Sad to realize the computer industry got a major start due to the practice of hiding and trying to see hidden communications.
An apparent practice that seems inbreed to the point of...... well where does inbreeding usually lead?
That's going to end. Just call me Neo!
Yep! the informant is real!
Each one of the character represent an action. Something we all do. Actions that can be programmed and used to automate dynamically.
How bad do you really want the next advancement in User Interfaces? Bad enough to become unplugged from the psuedo programming system, and that which supports it?
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
I want my flying car, they said there would be flying cars by year 2000, I want my flying car.
And then there was 1984.......
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Considering the mix of open and closed source direction of Amiga Corps....
...
On 03-Jul-00 08:18:14 Pyloo wrote:
> Timothy Rue wrote:
>>
>> On 01-Jul-00 16:05:45 Steve Duff
>> wrote:
>> SD> Jason Compton wrote in message
>> SD> news:8jl1ja$1km$4@flood.xnet.com...
>> >> Steve Duff wrote:
>> >> : Oh, Bill made a bit of a slip when he bragged about the
>> >> : 'installed base of 7 million' Amigas.
>> >>
>> >> An ORDER OF MAGNITUDE isn't a slip, that's a bald-faced lie.
>>
>> SD> Well, I was putting a positive spin on it
>>
>> SD> Then again, lies are like oxygen in the computer world --
>> SD> companies seem to need them to live. Like Apple and its
>> SD> 'installed base of 25 million' Macs. Or like Bill Gates saying
>> SD> that Microsoft 'innovates' and makes 'great software.' One
>> SD> could quibble about which of these lies is closer to the
>> SD> truth, but they all stretch the long arm of credibility right
>> out of its socket.
>>
>> SD> It would be nice if the Amiga world could set a better
>> SD> example, but I understand Bill's desire not to seem like such
>> SD> a small-fry.
>>
>> SD> --
>>
>> SD> Best;
>> SD> Steve Duff Team *AMIGA*
>>
>> SD> A3000T, A4000T -- very nicely equipped
>>
>> I thought your post was worth repeating!
>>
>> Cept one small things or two. Something about tired legacy and
>> *not* being a small-fry only by getting on the band wagon everyone
>> else is on, called dishonesty. The term oxymoron comes to mind.
>>
>> Desert of the Real, is because of why?
> It is said that it is the ability to lie which allowed us evolve
> beyond our cousins, the apes...
> What do you expect from the human species, this being the case?
> Pyloo.
It was also said and published that traveling faster than 35 miles per
hour you would sufficate.
and I believe someone even published something with loads of errors in
what people said.
I recall something about computers being said by one well known in the
computer industry.... Something that in hindsight is obviously in great
error....now if I can only remember what it was...
Perhaps you or somone else here can help? Do you know of anything such as
this?
Hmmm, then there was someone at the patent office who said everything that
can be invented has already been invented. I believe their position was
that of director of the Patent office. This was before the advent of the
computer I believe.
Hmmmm, and about the missing link between ape and man..... Do you know
what this is?
Perhaps the ability to lie and chosing to is only a symptom of not
advancing enough.
Thomas Edison (General Electric) said AC power would kill. So the
governing system wanted to execute a prisoner and tried to with AC power.
The reason Thomas Edison said this is because He believed DC power was
better but that Westinghouse was competing with his more limited DC power
plants, by using AC power plants that could be wired for much further
distance.
It's true that AC power can be more dangerious than DC but the execution
attempt backfired on Thomas Edison intent to show AC was deadly and to
risky for public use.
They had to electrocute (AC) the guy twice.
Most remember Thomas Edison for the light Bulb, not the phonograph or
motion picture. And even fewer know about this execution history.
But as DC is oneway current, much like the oneway feeding of the computer
industry. AC is beginning to challenge it enough that DC has become
defensive and even attempts to make illegal the AC of open source and free
software.
Some are even trying to mix the DC with AC......using diodes to block what
they don't like while accepting what they can take for free themselves.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Alot of interesting responses and suggestions, but from my scanning them,
all I could see is what is an endless loop that thru time shows a sine wave.
It doesn't have to be this way. There are other successful business models
that such problems won't "need" to exist.
Only playing the king of the hill game must end.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
perhaps this is not yet an estabished market, but in time, the time
it takes to go thru appeals, it will become more certain which direction
this new market is going.
The internet appliance market uses smaller, modular and stable(r) OSs. such as QNX.
If this new market takes off the consumer and many small business desktop system
market will be replaced with such internet appliances.
In this event MS could present a bad arguement in appeal, so to lose, both the case
and the responsibility to continue and support the bloated OS that many use.
By passing it off to a company that cannot survive in the new market, MS effectively
disconnects themselves from this boat anchor bloat.
And for the unhappy users (a not so small number) of the bloat, MS can even pass off
the blame to blaming those who opposed them, including the DOJ.
On the other hand, should the internet appliance market not do so well, leaving a need
to still support desktops, then in light of the integration everyone else will be
doing with OSs and internet connectivity, MS will have a good arguement to present in appeal.
argueing double standards being imposed by the DOJ.
What's this got to do with the topic here? Keeping IE with the OS side greatly reduces this
choice MS must know exist in the legal process, for them.
And as a little note: MS knows there are those who do not like them and that this dislike
is not short term. Should the Internet appliance market take off and MS loses appeal, MS opposers
might be hapy until MS says to them, you cannot double jebordy me, you got what you wanted.
And this as the remaining part of MS still practices anti-trust (such practice is not something
defined in paper but of human actions).
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
as so many subjects on slashdot dance around a central issue, I find myself repeating and wondering when I'm gonna be wrongly accused of advertising.
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html
I could give the url to the patent office doc that contains this information, but it's a little more difficult to access.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html
There are some things you cannot patent. Physical Phenomenon, Natural Law and abstract ideas.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
What ever the hell happened to supporting and encouraging those who make advancements instead of playing a game about hpow much you can say CANNOT to YOU AND YOU AND YOU, BUT YOU OVER THERE BLA BLA BLA, anybody can ramble like kants, it's all cant's anyway.
BUT WHO REALLY CAN ANYMORE? Let's play this pathetic CANNOT game until nobody can do anything, CHECKMATE!
Lets' run it into the fucking ground, until somebody wakes the fuck up and realizes, PHYSICS AND NATURE DO NOT SAY CANNOT ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUSH AS MAN AND HIS GAME PLAYING (he who has the most IP Cannot wins)
Fucking pay those who produce good things, pay them to produce more and stop fucking playing the bully of the sand box brat.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
People should not be falsely constraind from doing/creating good things, but those before them, for which they stand on such prior work, deserve proper reward. As those who build upon such work will one day be the base of still others....
"CAN" Based IP laws need to be developed
This can happen at the government level but may need to happen first at the development level, such as thru something along the lines of the GPL - an agreement or contract. Once this build up momentum then government regulations are more likely to change.
As a member of the human race, I do not appriciate such false constraints placed upon what we all can do to improve the value and experience of life. Who is to say a cure for something like cancer is not possible because IP law says you cannot do it?
The real problem is in having "Cannot" based IP laws. It's what fuels all the friction and this is NOT efficient in light of the ever increasing rate of our advancements.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
So to keep pace with development tools - AUTO-CODING development environments that lend to the ability to do more than just auto-coding.
There are the do's don't's and standards of programming in any language for any system that can certainly be automated. and just as this is possible, it is possible to automate any other reacurring action set in the development process.
So the question is how? .doc format which you'd then have to DL alot more and then look at just one small part of that .doc.
The answer is simple. When you get right down to things, there are nine things we do, nine action constants, that can be made into a configuration of computer functionality that lends itself to developing such auto-coding environments, as well as other things.
I've posted this before and I could give a USPTO URL that contains this information in
Instead: http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html
Maybe it's just to simple for most to accept??
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Hmmm, the matrix Nebachadnezzar and it 9 crew members fighting against three agents.h tml for the relationships to what we do.
see: http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/matrix-squared.
Also see Occums Razor post.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html
Do consider the references. The sixth can be replaced with "The Tao Of Physics" by Fritjof Capra which is probably easier to find than the reference given. And it does have on page 229 the diagram refered to.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!