"..that automatically look at every document a user creates, receives or views, transmitting messages to 'action' plug-ins - and even to the plug-ins' authors - that can be used to decide what info you'll be presented with, what options you'll be given, what price you'll pay for goods, and even who you'll be permitted to buy from."
Interesting that anti-spyware has shown fresh installs of MS windows OS has spyware that tracks online use...
Where are our privacy laws and fair competition laws?
Or do we really know who has bought them away from us?
Or in other words: nobody gets an unfair (anti-competition) advantage in marketing via patenting some automated privacy invading information collecting marketing process.
Most software is NOT patentable as shown by abstraction physics", and that certainly includes this.
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
... counting on human error in order to profit by.
Hmmm, as an example.... war on iraq for oil....
credit card promotional interest rates and the untentional failure (honestly forgetting) to make a payment, or not knowing that transfers at 0% or low rates while having higher rate debit... where the lower rate gets paid off first -- increasing compounded interest on teh higher rate... etc..
I have no doubt that as a matter of insured payoff, to invest in human failure is a successful investment practice.
I'm sure better than the stock market scamming of the public,
Its the way the human mind works to find solutions, be they solutions to better warfare or better peace.
However, there is also the matter of needing to see things for what they really are. This is where statistics comes into the picture. For example: research done in the US regarding crime rates and its relationsip to race shows that the black community has a much higher rate of crime. And then there is South Africa, where you find the highest rate of AIDS infecion in the world.
I used to think I was the most prejudice person in the world, prejudice against those who are prejudice, then I move to Atlanta and begain to understand, not so much prejudism, but statistics, FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE over a period of time.
I now guestion the prejudism arguement, seeing how its been distored and used as an excuse to do other unfairly.
Maybe the hate mongers need to also get in touch with reality and deal with things on a matter of statistics.... addressing the real issues in a non prejudice manner. For certainly it is in recognizing the real issues where solutions will actually be found, rather than snow balling hateful illusions.
Or should we all rush out and patent all translations we can think of?
If the Patent office grants this patent, then nobody need respect the USPTO or any of the patent grants they have issued or any court upholding such foolishness.
It really quite simple. Don't just demand, insist and persist with a boston tea party style denial of the validity of the USPTO, until they get back to real and can prove it.
Your defence? Simply the evidence that the USPTOs ability to identify genuinely patentable material has become distorted to the point of not being able to properly identify genuinely patentable material. As such, the court has been left with the task, and that being so, any paperwork the patent office issues, such as patent grants, should be worth zero in courtroom consideration.
I'm sure there are plenty of presidence for this stand. One such resource might very well be the USPTOs own list of patent grants overturned.
It like a bunch of people have pursued some man made rules or laws that rely on the earth being flat. But now that the earth really isn't flat, these rules, these laws are having a problem holding up. A lack of integrity of the rules/laws of which so many have beeing following.
So yeah, its really not supprising the exposure of the web of distortion that has spread thru out the industry.
Imagine what it would be like to see from the POV of one having clairity of the issue. Imagine how those following and supporting such distortion would be preceived by such a POV.
Of course there is the DOJ having already established their bias in MS favor regarding punishment and MS's attitude of what fines and claimed constraints have been made are just the "cost of doing business"...
...there is a reason or two why this is not yet common knowledge amoung the public and probably a large percentage of software developers, proprietary and Open Source alike.
... is the fact that people think differently, using differ methods of thinking. Someone who can visualize things will tend to use that in thinking, where a person who thinks in terms of abstraction (words) will use that, etc...
What is real, is abstraction physics. The understanding of abstraction creation and use, knowing that you can attach what ever interface you find useful to you....
Jefs direction of commands sets acting upon content is the right direction but what about the users ability to create such???
BTW, there are three primary UIs. Jef got the first two right, the third he apparently doesn't mention, but must know about in order to make his system work. (the side door port to functionality access)
There is another work being done regarding Abstraction Physics. Yeah, I need to spend some more money on hiring a coder.
The difference between the opt-in and the opt-out is a matter of dealing with one of the properties of getting a copyright, authorship, which translates to prior art evidence.
The opt-out still doesn't enable opt-in in those cases it is used.
Its really quite simple, once a work is done and published, it creates prior art and this inherently prevents another from comming along and claiming ownership.
the fundamental difference between opt-in and opt-out is the default respect given to the authorship.
For Kyle and those like him creating an archive (ie google regarding usenet archives), which itself has public and historic value, there should be a copyright exception allowed, as it actually helps to establish and provide proof of prior art. As such public archiving should be considered "fair use."
Software is not patentable. So why are they persisting to do wrong?
Here's a thought as to why they don't yet get it (nobody wants to tell them why its really not patentable.)
In regards to dealing with increased complexity in software MS has their longhorn and their software factories effort, free software has its edos project, neither of which are in promotion of honesty regarding programming, or what is the application of abstraction physics.
Its really quite simple. To support the non-patentability of software the foundation upon which software is created must be supported the same. Free Software development community doesn't want to do this anymore than proprietary software campanies.
For its always about money based upon some mode of elitism. With Free Software its the service oriented products/applications and complexity out of teh reach of most customers, with proprietary software its exclusive use.
But if the arguement that software is not patentable due to its abstract ideas status, that anyone is capable of abstract logical thought and ideas, then that status has to be supported by making software obviously easy enough that the "free software" label will be because software is easy enough to create that its free in the sense that anyone can create it or cause the machine to, regardless of their knowledge resource. (you don't need to know how a calculator works to use it to calculate an equasion you input or hit the key that does some equasion for you - ie pi)
How do I know this? In a email to various participants of Edos, (Of which experience tells me not to expect any support for honesty about abstraction physics. Or any indication they got the email, as avoidance seems to be thought to be proof against something the thing being avoided), I wrote:
RE: press release "Major European research institutions and Open Source software companies today announced the launch of EDOS, a project dealing with complexity management in the field of Open Source software. The participants will collaborate in the development of theoretical and technical solutions to the management of large-scale, modular software projects..."
Abstraction Physics is the foundation of the practical application solutions. Deal with that, establish the mechanics and create the software mechanism and the rest will come easy (or boringly repetitive), where there is plenty to apply "navigational mapping" to and productively exaust the funds on and I believe to accomplish a lot more then thought possible regarding the EDOS goals.
I can wonder why the USPTO edited my comment and removed the near transparent markup but here is the version I sent them (with contact information limited). Also this google finding.
The Virtual Interaction Configurationion project is GPL'd (forkable and all the other things allowed) and would amount to maybe a drop in the bucket, in comparison to the funding and manpower the EDOS project has available, it could be completed and I believe used to surpass the goals of EDOS.
Current state is that of needing some correction and completion in the current python code, integration of the existing IQ and ID commands and the c
.... the creation of software is typically out of the reach of most users.
Imagine the programming required to create a holodeck program (not the rendering but the coding), whgere a child can instruct the computer to generate the program based on teh childs input specifications.
... piracy is good for the industry to some degree, as it brings to mind works that might then be bought. Otherwise its out of mind...
How do I know this?
Its simple, back in teh napster days beginnings a co worker had put together some 80's popular song CD and many ofthe works I liked and thought of getting a copy from him, that I might better be able to find the albums at the record store... something for the sales clerks to hear and help me with..
But IP shit hit the fan about that time and I lost interest due to all the flax the industry was causing over it, and the threats they were making... it all sounded/appeared to be the result of a spoiled child when they believed something was being taken away from them in their greed...
Whats more likely to happen is something much closer to holodeck programming then service oriented applications.
That is to say:
Programming is the act of automating complexity, usually made up of other automations. So as a matter of carring out the purpose of programming, it will become an automation of software creation based upon user description of the application they want.
Of course this will be mostly local and thanks to the concept of FreeSoftware, the resource base will be free too.
Its really a matter of abstraction physics. Or to say it another way, with analogy, we will be moving out of the limitations of the elitism of roman numeral systems and into the wider and easier and more powerful use of the decimal system and the zero place holder.....in regards to programming...
its the manifestation of the user frustration function in MS windows. A result of making software with a slant towards making people need MS, MS tech support or upgrades.... even for simple common sence tasks....
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 i
There are several people whom I have cleaned their system from running IE on the internet. If its bad enough, where I have to do a fresh install, I set it up with a Linux partition, but in any case I install firefox as a default browser, etc...
90% of the time they go back to polluting their system.
Its frustrating, considering I'm doing the cleaning as a friend. But as soon as I find out they are contridicting my efforts, I tell them it up to them to clean it from now on.
Recent/. article about MS buying up a spyware removal company.... but heres the deal. MS sees things from a commercial basic limited view money making perspective and as such they understand the value of spyware and such... so of course they support it. They will never really work to remove it, but rather use it.
Slashdot Mirror
to handle teh abstractions of the the abstract markets...
Just how damn far can you get away from the concrete basis of patents and still obtain a patent?
Depends on the organization granting patents apparently.
"..that automatically look at every document a user creates, receives or views, transmitting messages to 'action' plug-ins - and even to the plug-ins' authors - that can be used to decide what info you'll be presented with, what options you'll be given, what price you'll pay for goods, and even who you'll be permitted to buy from."
...
Interesting that anti-spyware has shown fresh installs of MS windows OS has spyware that tracks online use
Where are our privacy laws and fair competition laws?
Or do we really know who has bought them away from us?
The only way for this to be faired up is to allow any and everyone who wants to use such a thing, to be able to. Just like the solution to the "trillion dollar bet">/a> was faired up, via exposure and wide scope use.
Or in other words: nobody gets an unfair (anti-competition) advantage in marketing via patenting some automated privacy invading information collecting marketing process.
Most software is NOT patentable as shown by abstraction physics", and that certainly includes this.
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
or begetting itself ... avoid solution directions.... hence moding the above as a troll...
hahahaha...
... counting on human error in order to profit by.
... where the lower rate gets paid off first -- increasing compounded interest on teh higher rate... etc..
Hmmm, as an example.... war on iraq for oil....
credit card promotional interest rates and the untentional failure (honestly forgetting) to make a payment, or not knowing that transfers at 0% or low rates while having higher rate debit
I have no doubt that as a matter of insured payoff, to invest in human failure is a successful investment practice.
I'm sure better than the stock market scamming of the public,
As a matter of learning tolerance we all should realize that not only does knowledge beget knowledge, but specific knowledge begets its own kind. If you focus on warfare and waring tactics (even under the illusion that its for peace) you will beget better waring tactics, not peace. Likewise, if you focus on the tasks certainly and consistantly contributing towards actual peace then you are going to improve upon it.
Its the way the human mind works to find solutions, be they solutions to better warfare or better peace.
However, there is also the matter of needing to see things for what they really are. This is where statistics comes into the picture. For example: research done in the US regarding crime rates and its relationsip to race shows that the black community has a much higher rate of crime. And then there is South Africa, where you find the highest rate of AIDS infecion in the world.
I used to think I was the most prejudice person in the world, prejudice against those who are prejudice, then I move to Atlanta and begain to understand, not so much prejudism, but statistics, FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE over a period of time.
I now guestion the prejudism arguement, seeing how its been distored and used as an excuse to do other unfairly.
Maybe the hate mongers need to also get in touch with reality and deal with things on a matter of statistics.... addressing the real issues in a non prejudice manner. For certainly it is in recognizing the real issues where solutions will actually be found, rather than snow balling hateful illusions.
Or should we all rush out and patent all translations we can think of?
If the Patent office grants this patent, then nobody need respect the USPTO or any of the patent grants they have issued or any court upholding such foolishness.
It really quite simple. Don't just demand, insist and persist with a boston tea party style denial of the validity of the USPTO, until they get back to real and can prove it.
Your defence? Simply the evidence that the USPTOs ability to identify genuinely patentable material has become distorted to the point of not being able to properly identify genuinely patentable material. As such, the court has been left with the task, and that being so, any paperwork the patent office issues, such as patent grants, should be worth zero in courtroom consideration.
I'm sure there are plenty of presidence for this stand. One such resource might very well be the USPTOs own list of patent grants overturned.
...Why Software Patents are not patentable
But you really already know this... Don'tcha?!
... well that aren't valid in the first placed.
It like a bunch of people have pursued some man made rules or laws that rely on the earth being flat. But now that the earth really isn't flat, these rules, these laws are having a problem holding up. A lack of integrity of the rules/laws of which so many have beeing following.
So yeah, its really not supprising the exposure of the web of distortion that has spread thru out the industry.
Imagine what it would be like to see from the POV of one having clairity of the issue. Imagine how those following and supporting such distortion would be preceived by such a POV.
Perhaps this is such a view!?
... libel?
free as in beer not speech????
...is by many of the slashdot commentors.
Soooo try this tree of links out for insight as to what is planned for in longhorn
Of course there is the DOJ having already established their bias in MS favor regarding punishment and MS's attitude of what fines and claimed constraints have been made are just the "cost of doing business"...
...there is a reason or two why this is not yet common knowledge amoung the public and probably a large percentage of software developers, proprietary and Open Source alike.
... revelations can really happen, beast wise.
Hmmm, Bush is against abortion but this has to be something he is in favor of, end times and all he believes.
... is the fact that people think differently, using differ methods of thinking. Someone who can visualize things will tend to use that in thinking, where a person who thinks in terms of abstraction (words) will use that, etc...
What is real, is abstraction physics. The understanding of abstraction creation and use, knowing that you can attach what ever interface you find useful to you....
Jefs direction of commands sets acting upon content is the right direction but what about the users ability to create such???
BTW, there are three primary UIs. Jef got the first two right, the third he apparently doesn't mention, but must know about in order to make his system work. (the side door port to functionality access)
There is another work being done regarding Abstraction Physics. Yeah, I need to spend some more money on hiring a coder.
.... mail to news floods of spam... have you looked into gnu.misc.discuss lately?
Now that should be wrong, mixing mail spam into news..
Besides, AOL isn't removing web access such as google groups...so just how important is this article?
The difference between the opt-in and the opt-out is a matter of dealing with one of the properties of getting a copyright, authorship, which translates to prior art evidence.
The opt-out still doesn't enable opt-in in those cases it is used.
Its really quite simple, once a work is done and published, it creates prior art and this inherently prevents another from comming along and claiming ownership.
the fundamental difference between opt-in and opt-out is the default respect given to the authorship.
For Kyle and those like him creating an archive (ie google regarding usenet archives), which itself has public and historic value, there should be a copyright exception allowed, as it actually helps to establish and provide proof of prior art.
As such public archiving should be considered "fair use."
Software is not patentable. So why are they persisting to do wrong?
Here's a thought as to why they don't yet get it (nobody wants to tell them why its really not patentable.)
In regards to dealing with increased complexity in software MS has their longhorn and their software factories effort, free software has its edos project, neither of which are in promotion of honesty regarding programming, or what is the application of abstraction physics.
Its really quite simple. To support the non-patentability of software the foundation upon which software is created must be supported the same. Free Software development community doesn't want to do this anymore than proprietary software campanies.
For its always about money based upon some mode of elitism. With Free Software its the service oriented products/applications and complexity out of teh reach of most customers, with proprietary software its exclusive use.
But if the arguement that software is not patentable due to its abstract ideas status, that anyone is capable of abstract logical thought and ideas, then that status has to be supported by making software obviously easy enough that the "free software" label will be because software is easy enough to create that its free in the sense that anyone can create it or cause the machine to, regardless of their knowledge resource. (you don't need to know how a calculator works to use it to calculate an equasion you input or hit the key that does some equasion for you - ie pi)
How do I know this? In a email to various participants of Edos, (Of which experience tells me not to expect any support for honesty about abstraction physics. Or any indication they got the email, as avoidance seems to be thought to be proof against something the thing being avoided), I wrote:
RE: press release "Major European research institutions and Open Source software companies today announced the launch of EDOS, a project dealing with complexity management in the field of Open Source software. The participants will collaborate in the development of theoretical and technical solutions to the management of large-scale, modular software projects..."
Abstraction Physics is the foundation of the practical application solutions. Deal with that, establish the mechanics and create the software mechanism and the rest will come easy (or boringly repetitive), where there is plenty to apply "navigational mapping" to and productively exaust the funds on and I believe to accomplish a lot more then thought possible regarding the EDOS goals.
from: - ffii.org - Software Patents
to: Advances in software are advances in abstraction
Then to: Abstraction Physics
Microsofts direction with longhorn.
Google search "web" for: "Timothy Rue" patents a few links from that search are here
and here (-see comment #4 - I'm/VIC USPTO published protected!)
I can wonder why the USPTO edited my comment and removed the near transparent markup but here is the version I sent them (with contact information limited). Also this google finding.
The Virtual Interaction Configurationion project is GPL'd (forkable and all the other things allowed) and would amount to maybe a drop in the bucket, in comparison to the funding and manpower the EDOS project has available, it could be completed and I believe used to surpass the goals of EDOS.
Current state is that of needing some correction and completion in the current python code, integration of the existing IQ and ID commands and the c
I mean how does anyone know MS is not simply playing the numbers game, again?
What I mean by verification of the findings is that of the anti-spyware results. Are the findings really actually items of spyware nature?
Or is MS simply counting any competing product to their kingdom?
.... the creation of software is typically out of the reach of most users.
Imagine the programming required to create a holodeck program (not the rendering but the coding), whgere a child can instruct the computer to generate the program based on teh childs input specifications.
... piracy is good for the industry to some degree, as it brings to mind works that might then be bought. Otherwise its out of mind...
How do I know this?
Its simple, back in teh napster days beginnings a co worker had put together some 80's popular song CD and many ofthe works I liked and thought of getting a copy from him, that I might better be able to find the albums at the record store... something for the sales clerks to hear and help me with..
But IP shit hit the fan about that time and I lost interest due to all the flax the industry was causing over it, and the threats they were making... it all sounded/appeared to be the result of a spoiled child when they believed something was being taken away from them in their greed...
Not very appealing...
Whats more likely to happen is something much closer to holodeck programming then service oriented applications.
That is to say:
Programming is the act of automating complexity, usually made up of other automations. So as a matter of carring out the purpose of programming, it will become an automation of software creation based upon user description of the application they want.
Of course this will be mostly local and thanks to the concept of FreeSoftware, the resource base will be free too.
Its really a matter of abstraction physics. Or to say it another way, with analogy, we will be moving out of the limitations of the elitism of roman numeral systems and into the wider and easier and more powerful use of the decimal system and the zero place holder.....in regards to programming...
... to make such announcements regardless of the real outcome.
I.E. when they hear of a competitor working on something they suddenly have an announcement that they are doing something similiar but better.
Even if they never come out with it the threat from MS competition can cause additional pressure..
In honesty, it is best to ignore all anouncements comming from MS, unless it is regarding current product that you can actually touch.
its the manifestation of the user frustration function in MS windows. A result of making software with a slant towards making people need MS, MS tech support or upgrades.... even for simple common sence tasks....
guess they are not serious about...
... 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.)
Physics of Abstraction (abstraction physics)
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 i
...break.
/. article about MS buying up a spyware removal company.... but heres the deal. MS sees things from a commercial basic limited view money making perspective and as such they understand the value of spyware and such... so of course they support it. They will never really work to remove it, but rather use it.
There are several people whom I have cleaned their system from running IE on the internet. If its bad enough, where I have to do a fresh install, I set it up with a Linux partition, but in any case I install firefox as a default browser, etc...
90% of the time they go back to polluting their system.
Its frustrating, considering I'm doing the cleaning as a friend. But as soon as I find out they are contridicting my efforts, I tell them it up to them to clean it from now on.
Recent