...I have regained my consciousness about the subject.
locks are for honest people. What we make we can break.
terrorism will be removed when the excuses for supporting such is no longer existing.
And supporting such can come even from those claiming to be the good guys on any side, but who benefit off the existance of "terrorism"
whats the real excuse for 9/11? do a google search on "trillion dollar bet" and read the transcript
do we know how to remove "terrorism"? do a google on '"what the world wants" world games' to see how some military spending can be better used against "terrorism".
The most terrorism I have seen in my life is from the Bush administration banging war drums, 24 hours a day on ever news channel.
Was the anthrax letters used to get the new media to say what the Bush Administration wanted them to? Richard Jewell was wrongly blamed for the 1996 olympic park bombing..... Does anyone know the name of the us military person they tried to blame for the anthrax letters?
I'm just barely old enough to remember some war time propaganda against russia.... funny how today thru the internet we all now know the truth about the people of russia.... they are just like us.
Did the politicians and military leaders really belived the bull shit propoganda they were preaching? One thing is certain the world doesn't need this sort of Bull Shit.
Now we have a phantom evil called terrorism.
Of the percentage of the population of the world... something around 6 billion... isn't that a lot of military spending, tax payer revenue, being spent on what is some fraction of something quite less than even 1%?
1) Create a problem that otherwise doesn't exist. promote (provide excuse) and motivate terrorism indirectly so as to be safe from proof.
2) Create expensive but incomplete solutions to the fabricated problem.
3) profit!
Don't we all really know who the terrorist participants are?
Disclaimer and marketing hype history..
on
Longhorn Beta Begins
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"This Web site describes current aspirations, scenarios, and advancements being considered for the family of future Microsoft Windows client operating system offerings, code-named Longhorn. There is no guarantee, implied or otherwise, concerning final Longhorn release features or attributes. This statement of the Longhorn aspirations was last updated April 25, 2005."
...can anyone else take as much credit for successful marketing hype, buyout of other companies in order to disect them, call innovation of others their own and lets not forget the anti-competitive and anti-user freedom of their own work behaviour, does anyone else even come close?
MS is first and formost a marketing company with the goal of making people need them, well versed in teh law from which they the cost of being busted for illegal acts as part of the cost of doing business.
Their development goal is to keep things complicated enough that things the typical user should be able to do with ease, is often something that requires more than ease, and this development/integration has resulted in teh manifestation of the user frustration function. Which simply cannot be taken out of their products because it is no one function, but rather, as I said, teh result of the mindset of MS development.
If MS can lay genuine claim to something innovative it'd be user entrapment abuse.
What MS has done, motivate by the goal of a marketing company, is to sell for the highest profit margin product the least (reinvention is not invention but reuse) effort in put into that they can get away with.
In the process of this they, in their research collection process, collected up many programming concepts and datatypes and put them together in a not conflicting manner that they call the "Common Language Infrastructure". But in their marketing of ".net" (which the C.L.I. is core to) they really didn't know what it was, what they had or how to market it. This was a sure sign that they didn't innovate it but applied simple collecting up of much others had done, mixed it together - removed conflicting issues - and then said they innovated. Sure a run time engine etc.. are all logical common since next steps.
Recently they admitted the.net enterprise ideal there marketing came up with, wasn't working so well. I guess doing business vai the internet/.net and general security problems history just don't mix for the typically business common since.
Next on the list of things to try, which also makes use of other peoples works, though somehow taking claim of the bigger picture in which this new (not really) ideal is about, is "software factories".
Now what would one expect of a marketing company who's employees have been trained ingrained into their thinking brain, user entrapment abuse, "make people need you" do with the ideal of "Software Factories"?
Simple make it much more complicated and feeding MS biased, then it really is. Polluting it in effort to profit off the works of others.
MicroSoft being innovative?
Absolutely, But nothing ever said innovation must fall within the law or ethics even.
... it is abstraction and therefor possible to make it out to be whatever you want it to be.
You can take the simple task of tying your shoe and make it out to be so complicated in instruction that even a person with multipule degrees woul;d have trouble following.
You can also make it out to be so simple a child can learn to do it.
And so it is with programming, and many people including those mentioned should really know this.
As it has been a job to feed oneself off their programming, it is not uncommon for tasks that can be done in simple ways, to be over complicated in the way it is done in order to fend off the buyer from doing it themselves.
Microsoft is really good at complexication of what is otherwise simple. As a result their software suffers from the manifestation of the user frustration function. For instance their new and improved disk partitioning software is overcomplexicated more than FOSS compariable in functionality disk partitioning software.
MS (marketing software) uses this as one of its practices of making people need them.
So is software an art, a craft or an algorythim? Its a reflection of the thinking process of the programmer, is what it is.
I don't know about doing the same job, because nobody in their work history really does that, but otherwise being able to move on to more difficult stuff, and more interesting stuff, Absolutely! Genuine software engineering will come into the lime light.
But like Alchemy's evolution into Chemestry and the development of chemical megaplants, software development has to change its underlying base knowledge to allow it to more easily happen.
Roman Numeral math has limitations that prevent it from being used to do advanced math, but the base knowledge upon changing to the hindu-arabic decimal system, removed these limitations and made it possible for even kids to do math beyond teh limits of the decimal system.
The software industry has yet to fully and honestly recognize the simpler but inherent base knowledge for this to happen.
I am far from a supporter of the Marketing company known as Microsoft, but in understanding the mechanics of taking the works of other and altering it to create machinery that feeds the conpany... Microsoft in its collection of the works of other and evaluation and integration... etc... stumbled upon the summing of programming concepts and datatypes and came up with the Common Language Infrastructer (what amounts to being just short of making a genuine step in teh direction of computer science.)
But they didn't stop there they took that (half step) and more ideas and works of others and came up with what they call "software factories" but yet again polluting the genuiness of the base knowledge with self promotion and other distortions and injections of unneeded complexities (in their gears to make people think they need Microsoft)
Smart industry/society? Being dishonest isn't very smart and doesn't help the society get smart.
For if it were smart, then the base knoweldge would have already changed and we would already have better focus on harder and more interesting stuff. But at is not the way of a marketing company, it is instead to get maximum profit for teh least effort.
Little by little, is probably the way this evolution from software alchemy to "end user" applied chemestry is going to happen.
The only way to stop it (end user software chemestry) is to have a conspiracy which all programmers participate in knowingly. Something that is neither probable or likely, even if disguised as "certified" or other such clasification of having to have, or otherwise being called a programming industry terrorist, as some have tried to call Free Open Source Software movement.
I suspect that if it weren't for FOSS this change in the landscape of silicon valley wouldn't be happening at the rate it is, if at all.
But even still the base knowledge has to change, and not just for industry internal use, but for everyone, especially the end users. There is simply to many smaller things in automation to do then to hire a programmer or software engineer for, which freed up time will contribute to allowing the programmers becomming genuine software engineers the time to do the more difficult and interesting things.
Long winded responce perhaps, but trying to point out the road hazards, fake road blocks and detours that never intend on allowing one to getting back on genuine course, to be smart enough to see past the marketeers goals.
Programming is teh act of automating complexity, typically made up of less complex, but still the same...automations. It is done so that the user of the complexity can use and reuse the complexity thru a simplified (in relationship to the complexity) interface.
With this it is inherent that the field of programming is something of a job intended to work itself out of a job... Otherwise there is a serious problem exposed in the software industry.
There will always be jobs in programming but tasks will change and as programming automates more and more of its own field, simplifying the process, so will it allow more and more to do programming/automating, for themselves, perhaps not strickly as a programmer 9-5 but as a task to do as part of other main duties of onmes position at a company.
Simply understand the inherent objective of progamming and carry it on out in its evolution..
about a year ago I go a notice from the USPS in regards to what they claim my official address is.
Interesting enough it was different than what I had been using for over a decade, even different then what the postal carrier was used to (these guys are pretty good at figuring out the correct address for incorrect and incomplete addresses).
Hell, this official postal address is even different that what the street name sign reads.
From: Hudson Crossing Road TO: Hudsn Xing
the placement of the apartment number is different than anything I have ever used, Where originally mail was delivered directly to each building so the apt. number was a dash number following teh address number.
and the additional 4 numbers following the 5 digit zip...
The point is, prior art can be found within the USPS or any other carrier that using automatic sorting of mail.
Just because you can automate something that was otherwise being done manually, does in no way present innovation.
Automation itself has tons of prior art, for it is the fundamental principle and goal of teh whole field of programming.
The USPTO is near completely invalidated itself. But instead pass its task onto courts playing the who has the most money monopoly game.
Quick someone patent patentnopoly (monopoly the board game but based upon patenting natural laws, physical phenomenon, abstract ideas, mathmatical algorythims, etc...).
I now feel bad about having bought two books thru amazon used books. I'll never buy anything from amazon again. Just like I no longer by music unless I buy it directly from the artist.
A good part of the reason is that psuedo innovation is becomming the focal point.
Disallow software patents and the total number drops significantly.
Stop the funding of abstract psuedo science and it will drop more.
The RTFA doesn't work here as this article isn't the real article of the research results.
Those who disagree with him that others might listen to, seem to think innovation can continue but only for those with tons of money for R&D.
Notable innovation has slowed due to the distraction of psuedo R&D... and this from a distraction from genuine science. The carrot of money which is given only when it can distract genuine science.
Nano technology has a long way to go and Artificial intelligence is - nothing is naturally that stupid... an illusion of intelligence, but in reality nothing more than almost doing what it is programmed to do.
I'd like to see a comparison of innovation to the change from the roman numeral system to the decimal system. As I suspect there is a need to change some fundamental idealoligies of our calculations today. Changes that will revitalize innovation.
With the roman numeral system advanced math was extreamly hard if not impossible to do. That base thinking tool set had such limitations that today we would not have much, certainly not computers, had we not moved past the limitations of calculation with roman numerals.
Today the limitations are being cause by a failure or genuine computer science to establish the base line of abstraction physics. In simple terms, seeing past the abstraction of numbers (regardless fo the numbering system being use) and to extend calculation abilities to include other anbstractions as well. This is possible through the establishment of abstraction physics.
However, it took three hundred years for the decimal system with its (how can nothing have value?) zero place holder to overcome the limited roman numeral system.... BECAUSE of the vested interest in the roman numeral system accountants and supporters.
Bring abstraction physics into teh picture and it becomes clear that Software is NOT patentable, but calculation advances then allow for revitalized innovation...just as the decimal system allowed us to advance past the limoitations of teh roman numeral system.
Abstraction enters the picture of computing with the representation of physical transistor switch positions of ON '1' and OFF '0' or what we call "Binary" notation. However, computers have far more transistor switches in them than we can keep up with in such a low level or first order abstract manner, so we create higher level abstractions in order to increase our productivity in programming computers. From Machine language to application interfaces that allow users to define some sequence of action into a word or button press (ie. record and playback macro) so to automate a task, we are working with abstractions that ultimately accesses the hardware transistor switches which in turn output to, or control some physical world hardware.
Programming is the act of automating some level of complexity, usually made up of simpler complexities, but done so in order to allow the user to use and reuse the complexity through a simplified interface. And this is a recursive act, building upon abstractions others have created that even our own created abstractions/automations might be used by another to further create more complex automations. In general, if we didn't build upon what those before us have done, we then would not advance at all, but rather be like any other mammal incapable of anything more than, at best, first level abstraction. But we are more, and as such have the natural human right and duty to advance in such a manner.
There is an identifiable and definable "physics of abstraction" (abstraction physics), an identification of what is required in order to make and use abstractions. Abstraction Physics is not exclusive to computing but constantly in use by... well... us humans. Elements or facets of abstraction physics include the actions of abstraction creation and use, such as defining a word to mean a more complex definition (word = definition, function-name = actions to take, etc.), Starting and Stopping (interfacing with) of an abstraction definition sequence, keeping track of where you are in the progress of abstraction sequence usage (moving from one abstraction to another), defining and changing "input from" direction, defining and changing "output to" direction, getting input to process (using variables or place holders to carry values), sequencially stepping thru abstraction/automation details (inherently includes optionally sending output), looking up the meaning of a word or symbol (abstraction) so to act upon or with it, identifing an abstraction or real item value so to act upon it, and putting constraints upon your abstraction lookups and identifications (when you look up a word in a dictionary you don't start at the beginning of the dictionary, but begin with the section that starts with the first letter then followed by the second, etc., and when you open a box with many items to stock, you identify each so as to know where to put it in stock.)
Abstraction Physics has yet to be established/recognized in a broad "common acceptance" manner, similiar to the difficulty in the acceptance of the hindu-arabic decimal system (which included the concept that nothing can have value - re: the Zero place holder). It took three hundred years (from inception) for the innovation of the now common decimal system to overcome the far more limited Roman Numeral system. (NOTE: mathmatics and the symbol sets used are also abstractions and therefor a subset of abstraction possibilities and certainly an application of abstraction physics.) Though the act of programming is still younger than many who apply it, we are technologically moving at a much faster rate of incorporating innovations and better understandings of reality. There is a physics to abstraction creation and use which can be used to model and create a non-patentable user friendly general use, and dynamic, automation (abstraction creation and usage) tool, that also allows for organized placement and access of abstractions in a logical or mapable and navigateable mann
Any and all who claim otherwise and support such direction, are guilty of fraud against humans in general. There is no compromise!
Either you are a criminal against man or you are not, there is no grey area between these, anymore than there is grey area between existance and nothing.
Are those who hold software patents guilty of this fraud?
If you don't know the answer to this, then you are being deceived, perhaps by yourself.
There is nothing to be confused about, unless you are participating in the creation of confusion, making you an accessory to the crime of fraud.
Fraud regarding abstraction easily leads to many other crimes.
There is such a foundation upon which honesty on this matter exist in recognizing the natural order of prerequsites/authority. Just as human life requires many conditions to exist, so it is that the laws of physics and nature have authority over man, unless man fully understands and works in accord with physics and nature, especially his own nature.
The computer/software industry has proven time and again its persistance in applying its shortsightedness. It's inability to see past its own....greed (for lack of a better explaination of why the computer industry is sight limited.)
Fraud is a crime. And when there is no one to enforce against crime, then the nature of crime shall take down everyone as it prevents human technological advancement that would otherwise improve survival odds, better understanding of physics and nature.
Copyright on software is appropriate, not of broad scope claims and false (gun backed) power to deny, patents on software are simply going to far in IP ownership. You cannot enforce against any human, a claim that they cannot be human.
Abstraction is a human thing, that both allows us to advance and defines us, sets us apart from other animal life.
It is inherently not in the best interest of human survival to deny humans of their natural rights to contribute to advancement.
... and the rest of the clase that he was only goinbg to spend 5 minutes on english grammer. And that is all he spent on it. Summing it up to say that he is not going to teach something that is not used. Instead he taught Abstract Communication.
I recall At&T produced a program that ran on teh Amiga Computer that would analyze text and deal with spelling, grammer, punuation, etc.. And it ran on the A1000.
I wonder why they never moved it on up to current systems. Maybe because it just ain't popular.
If'n you have a problem with someone elses communication... try think'in in colorful vocabulary, metaphors, analogies, etc.
But how many didn't understood what I said?
Wanta hear only proper english, then move in with british snobs.
I was trying to set up somethng that another user could log on to my machine with their account and run a simple program to reset something they access on the company network, as my machine is the host of that dongle- we are on a network.
After much of my time trying to figure out why he couldn't run the program - access denied...even after going thru all the security properties of the programs involved in this reset task I gave it to the company IT guy to try and solve...
After he basicly went thru all the same motions I did, he finially figured that my co-worker didn't have a local account on my system regardless of being able to log on to his account on the network from my machine.
I find this rather confusing. My question at this point, is this local account the same or tied to the network account? And does it mean that any system I want to log on to and have ability to run programs require me to have a another local account... (IE, there are three machines I use, do I need 4 accounts and the need to maintain all four separately on some things - though named the same and all????
as things get smaller:
All I really need is a flash drive that carries my system on it, with tools I personally purchased, where I plug it into any system I may use in the company. Where company purchased programs are made available on those systems for me to use at those stations specific for such work, and if the network administrator has given me clearance to use them. Of course company own files I my create would be on storage somewhere in teh company network.
This is plain common sence, its not novel or innovative and certainly not patentable in any sort of way, for it is no different then what I can expect of a company as a bench carpenter having my own personal tool set that I use along with company owned tools for which either the department leads of shop manager determine my access to. And of course any jigging I create for teh company becomes company property in a location of their choice.
What really pisses me off is the difficulty of being able to use my own tools without having to install them on company systems...And nobody made this a problem except for those with power tripping control freak problems...... FUCK, on teh Amiga a program wasn't really "installed" in such a wide integration of the system and its file structure, but rather installed into its own directory (where ever that may be) and runnable from there.... like today it might be a usb stick...
Security in computing today is really overcomplicated BS... when it should be more like car keys where you take them with you.
But does this apply to DRM where say MS decides you don't have a legal copy (understand all that MS gets wrong) and via DRM and network connection performs such crimes?
Slashdot Mirror
Logic games?
Made of what?
correct, now if we can get the software industry to call things what they really are...
Apparently one of your user interfaces is broken.
acts of fraud by the involved parties, there really isn't much to see here but just those wallowing in their own shit.
software by its very nature, is NOT patentable.
...I have regained my consciousness about the subject.
locks are for honest people. What we make we can break.
terrorism will be removed when the excuses for supporting such is no longer existing.
And supporting such can come even from those claiming to be the good guys on any side, but who benefit off the existance of "terrorism"
whats the real excuse for 9/11? do a google search on "trillion dollar bet" and read the transcript
do we know how to remove "terrorism"?
do a google on '"what the world wants" world games' to see how some military spending can be better used against "terrorism".
The most terrorism I have seen in my life is from the Bush administration banging war drums, 24 hours a day on ever news channel.
Was the anthrax letters used to get the new media to say what the Bush Administration wanted them to? Richard Jewell was wrongly blamed for the 1996 olympic park bombing..... Does anyone know the name of the us military person they tried to blame for the anthrax letters?
I'm just barely old enough to remember some war time propaganda against russia.... funny how today thru the internet we all now know the truth about the people of russia.... they are just like us.
Did the politicians and military leaders really belived the bull shit propoganda they were preaching? One thing is certain the world doesn't need this sort of Bull Shit.
Now we have a phantom evil called terrorism.
Of the percentage of the population of the world... something around 6 billion... isn't that a lot of military spending, tax payer revenue, being spent on what is some fraction of something quite less than even 1%?
1) Create a problem that otherwise doesn't exist.
promote (provide excuse) and motivate terrorism indirectly so as to be safe from proof.
2) Create expensive but incomplete solutions to the fabricated problem.
3) profit!
Don't we all really know who the terrorist participants are?
.... bombs.....come to mind?
"This Web site describes current aspirations, scenarios, and advancements being considered for the family of future Microsoft Windows client operating system offerings, code-named Longhorn. There is no guarantee, implied or otherwise, concerning final Longhorn release features or attributes. This statement of the Longhorn aspirations was last updated April 25, 2005."
and what do we know of MS marketing hype history?
...can anyone else take as much credit for successful marketing hype, buyout of other companies in order to disect them, call innovation of others their own and lets not forget the anti-competitive and anti-user freedom of their own work behaviour, does anyone else even come close?
.net enterprise ideal there marketing came up with, wasn't working so well. I guess doing business vai the internet/.net and general security problems history just don't mix for the typically business common since.
MS is first and formost a marketing company with the goal of making people need them, well versed in teh law from which they the cost of being busted for illegal acts as part of the cost of doing business.
Their development goal is to keep things complicated enough that things the typical user should be able to do with ease, is often something that requires more than ease, and this development/integration has resulted in teh manifestation of the user frustration function. Which simply cannot be taken out of their products because it is no one function, but rather, as I said, teh result of the mindset of MS development.
If MS can lay genuine claim to something innovative it'd be user entrapment abuse.
What MS has done, motivate by the goal of a marketing company, is to sell for the highest profit margin product the least (reinvention is not invention but reuse) effort in put into that they can get away with.
In the process of this they, in their research collection process, collected up many programming concepts and datatypes and put them together in a not conflicting manner that they call the "Common Language Infrastructure". But in their marketing of ".net" (which the C.L.I. is core to) they really didn't know what it was, what they had or how to market it. This was a sure sign that they didn't innovate it but applied simple collecting up of much others had done, mixed it together - removed conflicting issues - and then said they innovated. Sure a run time engine etc.. are all logical common since next steps.
Recently they admitted the
Next on the list of things to try, which also makes use of other peoples works, though somehow taking claim of the bigger picture in which this new (not really) ideal is about, is "software factories".
Now what would one expect of a marketing company who's employees have been trained ingrained into their thinking brain, user entrapment abuse, "make people need you" do with the ideal of "Software Factories"?
Simple make it much more complicated and feeding MS biased, then it really is. Polluting it in effort to profit off the works of others.
MicroSoft being innovative?
Absolutely, But nothing ever said innovation must fall within the law or ethics even.
... there were those who laffed at Linux...
things change...
... it is abstraction and therefor possible to make it out to be whatever you want it to be.
You can take the simple task of tying your shoe and make it out to be so complicated in instruction that even a person with multipule degrees woul;d have trouble following.
You can also make it out to be so simple a child can learn to do it.
And so it is with programming, and many people including those mentioned should really know this.
As it has been a job to feed oneself off their programming, it is not uncommon for tasks that can be done in simple ways, to be over complicated in the way it is done in order to fend off the buyer from doing it themselves.
Microsoft is really good at complexication of what is otherwise simple. As a result their software suffers from the manifestation of the user frustration function. For instance their new and improved disk partitioning software is overcomplexicated more than FOSS compariable in functionality disk partitioning software.
MS (marketing software) uses this as one of its practices of making people need them.
So is software an art, a craft or an algorythim?
Its a reflection of the thinking process of the programmer, is what it is.
... responsible for WMDs?
For clearly what other possible intent could there be in the manufacturing and sale of such items?
Or at least this is the thought that comes quickly to mind in reading about this grokster case.
I don't know about doing the same job, because nobody in their work history really does that, but otherwise being able to move on to more difficult stuff, and more interesting stuff, Absolutely! Genuine software engineering will come into the lime light.
... etc... stumbled upon the summing of programming concepts and datatypes and came up with the Common Language Infrastructer (what amounts to being just short of making a genuine step in teh direction of computer science.)
But like Alchemy's evolution into Chemestry and the development of chemical megaplants, software development has to change its underlying base knowledge to allow it to more easily happen.
Roman Numeral math has limitations that prevent it from being used to do advanced math, but the base knowledge upon changing to the hindu-arabic decimal system, removed these limitations and made it possible for even kids to do math beyond teh limits of the decimal system.
The software industry has yet to fully and honestly recognize the simpler but inherent base knowledge for this to happen.
I am far from a supporter of the Marketing company known as Microsoft, but in understanding the mechanics of taking the works of other and altering it to create machinery that feeds the conpany... Microsoft in its collection of the works of other and evaluation and integration
But they didn't stop there they took that (half step) and more ideas and works of others and came up with what they call "software factories" but yet again polluting the genuiness of the base knowledge with self promotion and other distortions and injections of unneeded complexities (in their gears to make people think they need Microsoft)
Smart industry/society? Being dishonest isn't very smart and doesn't help the society get smart.
For if it were smart, then the base knoweldge would have already changed and we would already have better focus on harder and more interesting stuff. But at is not the way of a marketing company, it is instead to get maximum profit for teh least effort.
Little by little, is probably the way this evolution from software alchemy to "end user" applied chemestry is going to happen.
The only way to stop it (end user software chemestry) is to have a conspiracy which all programmers participate in knowingly.
Something that is neither probable or likely, even if disguised as "certified" or other such clasification of having to have, or otherwise being called a programming industry terrorist, as some have tried to call Free Open Source Software movement.
I suspect that if it weren't for FOSS this change in the landscape of silicon valley wouldn't be happening at the rate it is, if at all.
But even still the base knowledge has to change, and not just for industry internal use, but for everyone, especially the end users. There is simply to many smaller things in automation to do then to hire a programmer or software engineer for, which freed up time will contribute to allowing the programmers becomming genuine software engineers the time to do the more difficult and interesting things.
Long winded responce perhaps, but trying to point out the road hazards, fake road blocks and detours that never intend on allowing one to getting back on genuine course, to be smart enough to see past the marketeers goals.
... even more so.
Programming is teh act of automating complexity, typically made up of less complex, but still the same...automations. It is done so that the user of the complexity can use and reuse the complexity thru a simplified (in relationship to the complexity) interface.
With this it is inherent that the field of programming is something of a job intended to work itself out of a job... Otherwise there is a serious problem exposed in the software industry.
There will always be jobs in programming but tasks will change and as programming automates more and more of its own field, simplifying the process, so will it allow more and more to do programming/automating, for themselves, perhaps not strickly as a programmer 9-5 but as a task to do as part of other main duties of onmes position at a company.
Simply understand the inherent objective of progamming and carry it on out in its evolution..
...infringing upon bozo's patent.
about a year ago I go a notice from the USPS in regards to what they claim my official address is.
Interesting enough it was different than what I had been using for over a decade, even different then what the postal carrier was used to (these guys are pretty good at figuring out the correct address for incorrect and incomplete addresses).
Hell, this official postal address is even different that what the street name sign reads.
From: Hudson Crossing Road
TO: Hudsn Xing
the placement of the apartment number is different than anything I have ever used, Where originally mail was delivered directly to each building so the apt. number was a dash number following teh address number.
and the additional 4 numbers following the 5 digit zip...
The point is, prior art can be found within the USPS or any other carrier that using automatic sorting of mail.
Just because you can automate something that was otherwise being done manually, does in no way present innovation.
Automation itself has tons of prior art, for it is the fundamental principle and goal of teh whole field of programming.
The USPTO is near completely invalidated itself. But instead pass its task onto courts playing the who has the most money monopoly game.
Quick someone patent patentnopoly (monopoly the board game but based upon patenting natural laws, physical phenomenon, abstract ideas, mathmatical algorythims, etc...).
I now feel bad about having bought two books thru amazon used books. I'll never buy anything from amazon again. Just like I no longer by music unless I buy it directly from the artist.
canm get around anti-spam and telemarking no call lists so long as they give you some gift. Like address labels or an online greeting card or...
...
just so long as they pay Bozo
software patents are acts of fraud against the general population of the human inhabitants.
I can think in abstract terms therefor I must be infringing upon someones patent..
invalidation of the patent system...
which is what Bill Gates and Microsoft are primarily...
This makes it damn near certain that one day Bill Gates will have some sort of implant..
Trust Murphy...
Mr. Gates does...
A good part of the reason is that psuedo innovation is becomming the focal point.
... and this from a distraction from genuine science. The carrot of money which is given only when it can distract genuine science.
Disallow software patents and the total number drops significantly.
Stop the funding of abstract psuedo science and it will drop more.
The RTFA doesn't work here as this article isn't the real article of the research results.
Those who disagree with him that others might listen to, seem to think innovation can continue but only for those with tons of money for R&D.
Notable innovation has slowed due to the distraction of psuedo R&D
Nano technology has a long way to go and Artificial intelligence is - nothing is naturally that stupid... an illusion of intelligence, but in reality nothing more than almost doing what it is programmed to do.
I'd like to see a comparison of innovation to the change from the roman numeral system to the decimal system. As I suspect there is a need to change some fundamental idealoligies of our calculations today. Changes that will revitalize innovation.
With the roman numeral system advanced math was extreamly hard if not impossible to do. That base thinking tool set had such limitations that today we would not have much, certainly not computers, had we not moved past the limitations of calculation with roman numerals.
Today the limitations are being cause by a failure or genuine computer science to establish the base line of abstraction physics. In simple terms, seeing past the abstraction of numbers (regardless fo the numbering system being use) and to extend calculation abilities to include other anbstractions as well. This is possible through the establishment of abstraction physics.
However, it took three hundred years for the decimal system with its (how can nothing have value?) zero place holder to overcome the limited roman numeral system.... BECAUSE of the vested interest in the roman numeral system accountants and supporters.
Bring abstraction physics into teh picture and it becomes clear that Software is NOT patentable, but calculation advances then allow for revitalized innovation...just as the decimal system allowed us to advance past the limoitations of teh roman numeral system.
Physics of Abstraction (abstraction physics)
... well... us humans. Elements or facets of abstraction physics include the actions of abstraction creation and use, such as defining a word to mean a more complex definition (word = definition, function-name = actions to take, etc.), Starting and Stopping (interfacing with) of an abstraction definition sequence, keeping track of where you are in the progress of abstraction sequence usage (moving from one abstraction to another), defining and changing "input from" direction, defining and changing "output to" direction, getting input to process (using variables or place holders to carry values), sequencially stepping thru abstraction/automation details (inherently includes optionally sending output), looking up the meaning of a word or symbol (abstraction) so to act upon or with it, identifing an abstraction or real item value so to act upon it, and putting constraints upon your abstraction lookups and identifications (when you look up a word in a dictionary you don't start at the beginning of the dictionary, but begin with the section that starts with the first letter then followed by the second, etc., and when you open a box with many items to stock, you identify each so as to know where to put it in stock.)
Abstraction enters the picture of computing with the representation of physical transistor switch positions of ON '1' and OFF '0' or what we call "Binary" notation. However, computers have far more transistor switches in them than we can keep up with in such a low level or first order abstract manner, so we create higher level abstractions in order to increase our productivity in programming computers. From Machine language to application interfaces that allow users to define some sequence of action into a word or button press (ie. record and playback macro) so to automate a task, we are working with abstractions that ultimately accesses the hardware transistor switches which in turn output to, or control some physical world hardware.
Programming is the act of automating some level of complexity, usually made up of simpler complexities, but done so in order to allow the user to use and reuse the complexity through a simplified interface. And this is a recursive act, building upon abstractions others have created that even our own created abstractions/automations might be used by another to further create more complex automations. In general, if we didn't build upon what those before us have done, we then would not advance at all, but rather be like any other mammal incapable of anything more than, at best, first level abstraction. But we are more, and as such have the natural human right and duty to advance in such a manner.
There is an identifiable and definable "physics of abstraction" (abstraction physics), an identification of what is required in order to make and use abstractions. Abstraction Physics is not exclusive to computing but constantly in use by
Abstraction Physics has yet to be established/recognized in a broad "common acceptance" manner, similiar to the difficulty in the acceptance of the hindu-arabic decimal system (which included the concept that nothing can have value - re: the Zero place holder). It took three hundred years (from inception) for the innovation of the now common decimal system to overcome the far more limited Roman Numeral system. (NOTE: mathmatics and the symbol sets used are also abstractions and therefor a subset of abstraction possibilities and certainly an application of abstraction physics.) Though the act of programming is still younger than many who apply it, we are technologically moving at a much faster rate of incorporating innovations and better understandings of reality. There is a physics to abstraction creation and use which can be used to model and create a non-patentable user friendly general use, and dynamic, automation (abstraction creation and usage) tool, that also allows for organized placement and access of abstractions in a logical or mapable and navigateable mann
Software by its nature is not patentable.
....greed (for lack of a better explaination of why the computer industry is sight limited.)
Any and all who claim otherwise and support such direction, are guilty of fraud against humans in general. There is no compromise!
Either you are a criminal against man or you are not, there is no grey area between these, anymore than there is grey area between existance and nothing.
Are those who hold software patents guilty of this fraud?
If you don't know the answer to this, then you are being deceived, perhaps by yourself.
There is nothing to be confused about, unless you are participating in the creation of confusion, making you an accessory to the crime of fraud.
Fraud regarding abstraction easily leads to many other crimes.
There is such a foundation upon which honesty on this matter exist in recognizing the natural order of prerequsites/authority. Just as human life requires many conditions to exist, so it is that the laws of physics and nature have authority over man, unless man fully understands and works in accord with physics and nature, especially his own nature.
The computer/software industry has proven time and again its persistance in applying its shortsightedness. It's inability to see past its own
Fraud is a crime. And when there is no one to enforce against crime, then the nature of crime shall take down everyone as it prevents human technological advancement that would otherwise improve survival odds, better understanding of
physics and nature.
Copyright on software is appropriate, not of broad scope claims and false (gun backed) power to deny, patents on software are simply going to far in IP ownership. You cannot enforce against any human, a claim that they cannot be human.
Abstraction is a human thing, that both allows us to advance and defines us, sets us apart from other animal life.
It is inherently not in the best interest of human survival to deny humans of their natural rights to contribute to advancement.
Don't participate in this fraud.
patent it and make it GPL so we can all still have metling ice to cool our drinks.
... 8.3 filenames cause it all...
variables right...
... and the rest of the clase that he was only goinbg to spend 5 minutes on english grammer. And that is all he spent on it. Summing it up to say that he is not going to teach something that is not used. Instead he taught Abstract Communication.
I recall At&T produced a program that ran on teh Amiga Computer that would analyze text and deal with spelling, grammer, punuation, etc.. And it ran on the A1000.
I wonder why they never moved it on up to current systems. Maybe because it just ain't popular.
If'n you have a problem with someone elses communication... try think'in in colorful vocabulary, metaphors, analogies, etc.
But how many didn't understood what I said?
Wanta hear only proper english, then move in with british snobs.
I was trying to set up somethng that another user could log on to my machine with their account and run a simple program to reset something they access on the company network, as my machine is the host of that dongle- we are on a network.
After much of my time trying to figure out why he couldn't run the program - access denied...even after going thru all the security properties of the programs involved in this reset task I gave it to the company IT guy to try and solve...
After he basicly went thru all the same motions I did, he finially figured that my co-worker didn't have a local account on my system regardless of being able to log on to his account on the network from my machine.
I find this rather confusing. My question at this point, is this local account the same or tied to the network account? And does it mean that any system I want to log on to and have ability to run programs require me to have a another local account... (IE, there are three machines I use, do I need 4 accounts and the need to maintain all four separately on some things - though named the same and all????
as things get smaller:
All I really need is a flash drive that carries my system on it, with tools I personally purchased, where I plug it into any system I may use in the company. Where company purchased programs are made available on those systems for me to use at those stations specific for such work, and if the network administrator has given me clearance to use them. Of course company own files I my create would be on storage somewhere in teh company network.
This is plain common sence, its not novel or innovative and certainly not patentable in any sort of way, for it is no different then what I can expect of a company as a bench carpenter having my own personal tool set that I use along with company owned tools for which either the department leads of shop manager determine my access to. And of course any jigging I create for teh company becomes company property in a location of their choice.
What really pisses me off is the difficulty of being able to use my own tools without having to install them on company systems...And nobody made this a problem except for those with power tripping control freak problems...... FUCK, on teh Amiga a program wasn't really "installed" in such a wide integration of the system and its file structure, but rather installed into its own directory (where ever that may be) and runnable from there.... like today it might be a usb stick...
Security in computing today is really overcomplicated BS... when it should be more like car keys where you take them with you.
But does this apply to DRM where say MS decides you don't have a legal copy (understand all that MS gets wrong) and via DRM and network connection performs such crimes?
Who goes to jail then?