Is anyone keep a record of how many laws MS breaks and how many anti-trust lawsuits they lost?
I believe that is what the real issue is all about, whether or not MS is up to no good... again. And it does put politicians and buracrats under suspect... again...
At some point the score has to become overwelming enough for the open source efforts to simply be enable to ignore those who have proven themselves dishonest in the market place.
I suspect there is alot yet to be uncovered about MS methodologies and business practices.
A great deal of the consumers time is wasted in finding out what a product can really do.
Such extreamism, if not worst than that, is counter productive for the whole industry, as the computer industry has been doing pretty good showing how well it applies double speak or its ability to manipulate abstractions, be it in producing code or producing advertising text...
A good example is teh recent stories regarding spyware removal products, how the freeware is far better.... because the incentive to deceive the consumer is just not there.
Sorta like saying this or that roman numeral equasion is to be kept secret....
consider:
FreeSoftware will only become genuinely free when it is easy enough to create that anyone, regardless of their resource limitations (knowledge, time, etc.) can create it, from simple automations to improve their personal productivity level to full application programming. This is based upon the primary concept and purpose of programming:
Programming is the act of automating complexity in order to make the use and reuse of the complexity easy for the user of the complexity. Programming is a recursive act, as shown by any code/programming being done above machine language. And it follows that it is of such recursion that Software will become genuinely free, or otherwise contridict its own primary concept and purpose.
NOW, with this in mind, it becomes irrelevant what software creation is kept secret.. sorta like all them good songs and artworks you never heard of cause they were never published or promoted... but for anything that is generally used, then what would the problem really be in opening the source up to at least inspection?
Locks are for honest people, cause anything we build we can break. If you want your system secure, than do allow others access to it and that means also not connecting it to the internet where way many access "ports" on your system.
Wanna do math with roman numerals? have at it, but I prefer to use the easier and more powerful Decimal system with its "nothing can have value" zero place holder.
Imagine if that was kept secret..... who'd have computers today?
....besides the congressional district thing there is the interest in space for military superiority.
Concerned about human life? considering the war on iraq...where are the WMDs? And the antrax used to scare the media into conformance (uh, it came from a US military base... you are a reporter, what story you gonna write? Maybe you gonna contact your repesentitive??)
Know an excuse when you see one.
Reality is simply one of control, and once congress feels they have a lock down on such control, then and only then will they allow such a method of development reward.
In the mean time it seems teh open source community is leading the way with bounty type projects.
Someone once told me that who ever wins the war gets to write its history.
Why 9/11 happened, or at least a really good excuse for some fanatics to use - three targets.. World Trade Center (wasn't the first attempt), Pentagon and White House.... Politically controlled, military backed, wrongful world stock market manipulation.
If you ever wondered where the dot com money came from... easy come easy go... but very bad reprecussions..
Ted Turner (CNN) once made a comment regarding 9/11.. something to the nature of calling it and act of desperation... then a few days later retracted that. (Who was using Antrax to threaten the new media? Answer is in where it came from -- a US based US military base..)
If I steal from you and you try to do anything about it, I can call you a terrorist? And then attack some other???
Ted Turner later made a comment that the Human race will end itself within a century. Lets see now... he is a reporter and knows all the reporter dirty tricks... but he is also a business man who has many such reporters and researchers working for him...
Those who use terrorism/enemy to battle to position themselves in power, will make up such even when it doesn't exist.... I remember all teh propoganda about how bad the russian people were but now that we have the internet and I have friends there... I now know its was a lie to serve those who created the lies.
Perhaps its time to break out historical documents like the Declaration of Independance (for example to refer to in writing such a document), for its seems obvious, given all the highly questionable things that have transpired, that the economic view of those in control goes only as far as their personal pockets.
Hmmm, come to think of it, perhaps the FOSS development community also has their limitations of concern.
What if the real arguement against software patents also undermined the whole software industry? That is to expose such understanding of software that leads, or general public recognition that it should, to a level of ease of programming that most anyone could do it, regardless of their limitations of time and specific knowledge resources.
To use an analogy: what would happen to the mathmatician/accountant industry if people were given a way to do it themselves even better then what the mathmatician/accounts were able to do at the time?
The 300 year conversion from the roman numeral system to the hindu-arabic decimal system. Why so long??? The answer should be obvious.
I suppose I am suggesting that both sides of the software patent war are biased with an economic excuse. And as such, the public is being represented only as far as either sides convience allows. (not unlike the real public position in the DOJ vs. MS anti-trust case.. and its outcome.)
Thank you for your effort to clairify. I read it with care and desire to fully understand the larger scope.
Unfortunately (and this is from someone strongly opposed to software patents and extened IP rights)... if this is the core of the arguement that those against software patents have to make, then software will be officially made patentable and we will have to somehow manage to see what we we don't see (what could have been instead).
"good enough" is about all there is. computers were designed to be versatile and programable not unlike a tool set used to create any number of different things in physical reality and of which is controlled by human mental activity via physical body movement.
I understand the arguement regarding levels of separation between the abstract and the physical.
But I also understand computers are the one invention that provides the most direct conversion from mental activity to physical product....
The proper way to distinguish between software patents and patents on computer-controlled devices is to exclude the processing, handling and presentation of information from the definition of the word "technical" for the purposes of patent law, to disallow patents on innovations in the field of data processing, and to establish the hard and fast requirement that natural forces are used to control physical effects beyond the digital sphere.
Its the "to establish the hard and fast requirement that natural forces are used to control physical effect beyond the digital sphere" part that I find confusing.
Are they saying the essence of "physical phenomenon and natural law" or in a word "physics" should be patentable?
And what of our natural ability to create higher level abstractions in order to better organize for greater productivity and better communication?
Or more specifically, what of the physics of abstraction creation and use? or is such NOT a natural force... not provable by whether or not the use of such can and most commonly results in a physical movement via such abstract communication.
It seems clear that they have failed to understand the nature of the media of "abstraction", for which programming is founded on.
... be it those three or their political opposition.
The reason is really very very simple...
politics and machine switching logic are way big time different things.
There are two ways to discover gravity. drop and apple or step off a cliff.
Either was gravity is going to take charge.
The same applied to software.
The difference here is that it seems half of the people with influence are insisting on doing it the harder and more deadly way. While the others are trying to present apple dropping evidence to those who find that evidence to weak to accept and respond with smart ass comments about making apple pie, again and again... they will try again next year if they don't kill someone this year....
So there is really only ONE WAY to get the hard reality across to the death seekers.... give them death...
ALOT OF IT!!!
bring to a hault all software development and use of anything that is not patented yet and don't pay for anything that is....
This can be bigger and better than the itty bitty "boston tea party". And it can make the boston tea party analogy hardly used...
So I'm being asked now..... how would it be possible to have such a party, that those against patents on software would most certainly attend?
Any ideas? Or is there a fear that most will wimp out?
That being a better and common understanding of abstraction physics. Where like with physical reality we gain more control the better we understand the physical physics, we will have more control in understanding abstraction physics better...
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... 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 ab
....But fail to realize that the spoon is like MS windows without competition... grows fat, bloated and contains the manifestation of the user frustration function so as to make people need to upgrade the spoon....and plug up holes in it...
Forking is a better evolution process as forking is only part the the process. The other part is re-integration of new and wonderful things resulting from forking..
What there is, is just the ability to create higher level abstractions. And to make computers more human friendly (Uh, computing/programmuing is the expression of the mindset of the programmer doing the coding and as such computers really are a reflection of those who create them...) we simply need to get to the core or hard reality of abstractions.
There is what I call the Microsoft manifestation of the user frustration function, which is the result of applying the mindset of "making people need you, in order to be successful"... a reflection of MS mindset...
Anyway the constant in all of this is:
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... 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: mat
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
perhaps we need an X prise for it to bring the price down and get it done now???
I'm a tax payer..... I don't approve of such a spending of money, expeciall considering such money and effort could be better spent on What the World Really Wants and as such reduce the need for anti-terrorism terrorism.....
People do things for reasons, even if they have to borrow or take the reason from others like this one for 9/11"... so lets instead simply remove the reasons and excuses that only support such terrorism groups to grow...
So yeah, 20 years and hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars can most certainly be better spent...than building a government owned and controlled private internet payed for by those not allowed to use it...
... is a marketing company first and formost. Second being a third party integrator of the works of others, if not law manipulators, making integration of the works of others in third place.
In their marketing they lie, they mislead, they present an illusion of their being something they are not, innovators. They use the law to manipulate others in the industry thru licensings and such agreements.
Numerious times they have been found guilty in a court of law for anti-trust violations and they general response is that such fines are part of the cost of doing business, as is the case of organized crime.
So when issues such as this article refers to comes up....
Facts?...... you want what?
OK!!
MS operates on illusion and their ability to fabricated it, if even just thru insinuation. And unfortunately, the public typically falls for it.
Is that fact enough for you all?
Licensing the internet is a good summary of what the general public would preceive of this, and MS knows it, and that is why they are doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
.... whats a penny, can't even buy a piece of gum right?
6 + billion people would result in a few dollars in my pocket, but that's not really the point.
The point is taxation without representation..
internet tea party anyone?
...items....
Now think again why MS would want such a anti-spyware product.
... competition in the market place?
... again...
Is anyone keep a record of how many laws MS breaks and how many anti-trust lawsuits they lost?
I believe that is what the real issue is all about, whether or not MS is up to no good... again. And it does put politicians and buracrats under suspect
At some point the score has to become overwelming enough for the open source efforts to simply be enable to ignore those who have proven themselves dishonest in the market place.
I suspect there is alot yet to be uncovered about MS methodologies and business practices.
....it is also rather unproductive.
A great deal of the consumers time is wasted in finding out what a product can really do.
Such extreamism, if not worst than that, is counter productive for the whole industry, as the computer industry has been doing pretty good showing how well it applies double speak or its ability to manipulate abstractions, be it in producing code or producing advertising text...
A good example is teh recent stories regarding spyware removal products, how the freeware is far better.... because the incentive to deceive the consumer is just not there.
Sorta like saying this or that roman numeral equasion is to be kept secret....
..... who'd have computers today?
consider:
FreeSoftware will only become genuinely free when it is easy enough to create that anyone, regardless of their resource limitations (knowledge, time, etc.) can create it, from simple automations to improve their personal productivity level to full application programming. This is based upon the primary concept and purpose of programming:
Programming is the act of automating complexity in order to make the use and reuse of the complexity easy for the user of the complexity. Programming is a recursive act, as shown by any code/programming being done above machine language. And it follows that it is of such recursion that Software will become genuinely free, or otherwise contridict its own primary concept and purpose.
NOW, with this in mind, it becomes irrelevant what software creation is kept secret.. sorta like all them good songs and artworks you never heard of cause they were never published or promoted... but for anything that is generally used, then what would the problem really be in opening the source up to at least inspection?
Locks are for honest people, cause anything we build we can break. If you want your system secure, than do allow others access to it and that means also not connecting it to the internet where way many access "ports" on your system.
Wanna do math with roman numerals? have at it, but I prefer to use the easier and more powerful Decimal system with its "nothing can have value" zero place holder.
Imagine if that was kept secret
....besides the congressional district thing there is the interest in space for military superiority.
Concerned about human life? considering the war on iraq...where are the WMDs? And the antrax used to scare the media into conformance (uh, it came from a US military base... you are a reporter, what story you gonna write? Maybe you gonna contact your repesentitive??)
Know an excuse when you see one.
Reality is simply one of control, and once congress feels they have a lock down on such control, then and only then will they allow such a method of development reward.
In the mean time it seems teh open source community is leading the way with bounty type projects.
Man is the only creature we recognize that is capable of higher level abstract thought.
It is this ability that enables us to advance, and we do this by building upon what those before us have done.
It should be very clear as to who has what intent given the hard realty facts.
There are those who prefer we be like ape so to serve them and those who prefer us to help build something we all benefit from.
so are you an ape, or a human?
Someone once told me that who ever wins the war gets to write its history.
Why 9/11 happened, or at least a really good excuse for some fanatics to use - three targets.. World Trade Center (wasn't the first attempt), Pentagon and White House.... Politically controlled, military backed, wrongful world stock market manipulation.
transcripts worth reading...
If you ever wondered where the dot com money came from... easy come easy go... but very bad reprecussions..
Ted Turner (CNN) once made a comment regarding 9/11.. something to the nature of calling it and act of desperation... then a few days later retracted that. (Who was using Antrax to threaten the new media? Answer is in where it came from -- a US based US military base..)
If I steal from you and you try to do anything about it, I can call you a terrorist? And then attack some other???
Ted Turner later made a comment that the Human race will end itself within a century. Lets see now... he is a reporter and knows all the reporter dirty tricks... but he is also a business man who has many such reporters and researchers working for him...
Those who use terrorism/enemy to battle to position themselves in power, will make up such even when it doesn't exist.... I remember all teh propoganda about how bad the russian people were but now that we have the internet and I have friends there... I now know its was a lie to serve those who created the lies.
Who are the real terrorist?
Funny, I was making a reference to what is fact.
...
MS did apply licensing constraints that prevented such companies as Gateway, from providing system with non-MS OS's
And I'm a troll for this....?????
Yeah this is interesting.
How far can MS infilterate the linus based communication ports?
.... considering the licensing pressure MS applied to some in the past regarding OS installation... re: DOJ vs. MS
indication of very thing I mention above
economic basis.... hmmm..
Perhaps its time to break out historical documents like the Declaration of Independance (for example to refer to in writing such a document), for its seems obvious, given all the highly questionable things that have transpired, that the economic view of those in control goes only as far as their personal pockets.
Hmmm, come to think of it, perhaps the FOSS development community also has their limitations of concern.
What if the real arguement against software patents also undermined the whole software industry? That is to expose such understanding of software that leads, or general public recognition that it should, to a level of ease of programming that most anyone could do it, regardless of their limitations of time and specific knowledge resources.
To use an analogy: what would happen to the mathmatician/accountant industry if people were given a way to do it themselves even better then what the mathmatician/accounts were able to do at the time?
The 300 year conversion from the roman numeral system to the hindu-arabic decimal system. Why so long??? The answer should be obvious.
I suppose I am suggesting that both sides of the software patent war are biased with an economic excuse. And as such, the public is being represented only as far as either sides convience allows. (not unlike the real public position in the DOJ vs. MS anti-trust case.. and its outcome.)
Thank you for your effort to clairify. I read it with care and desire to fully understand the larger scope.
Unfortunately (and this is from someone strongly opposed to software patents and extened IP rights)... if this is the core of the arguement that those against software patents have to make, then software will be officially made patentable and we will have to somehow manage to see what we we don't see (what could have been instead).
"good enough" is about all there is. computers were designed to be versatile and programable not unlike a tool set used to create any number of different things in physical reality and of which is controlled by human mental activity via physical body movement.
I understand the arguement regarding levels of separation between the abstract and the physical.
But I also understand computers are the one invention that provides the most direct conversion from mental activity to physical product....
Its the "to establish the hard and fast requirement that natural forces are used to control physical effect beyond the digital sphere" part that I find confusing.
Are they saying the essence of "physical phenomenon and natural law" or in a word "physics" should be patentable?
And what of our natural ability to create higher level abstractions in order to better organize for greater productivity and better communication?
Or more specifically, what of the physics of abstraction creation and use? or is such NOT a natural force
It seems clear that they have failed to understand the nature of the media of "abstraction", for which programming is founded on.
its about making linux (a kernal) enterprise ready and as a side effect causing real competition to happen again in the market place.
Or in other words, causing the others on the list to alter their ways..... hence most influencial...
and the other side of that coin..
Do the others on the list influence Linus and what he does?
probably not or very little...
... be it those three or their political opposition.
The reason is really very very simple...
politics and machine switching logic are way big time different things.
There are two ways to discover gravity. drop and apple or step off a cliff.
Either was gravity is going to take charge.
The same applied to software.
The difference here is that it seems half of the people with influence are insisting on doing it the harder and more deadly way. While the others are trying to present apple dropping evidence to those who find that evidence to weak to accept and respond with smart ass comments about making apple pie, again and again... they will try again next year if they don't kill someone this year....
So there is really only ONE WAY to get the hard reality across to the death seekers.... give them death...
ALOT OF IT!!!
bring to a hault all software development and use of anything that is not patented yet and don't pay for anything that is....
This can be bigger and better than the itty bitty "boston tea party". And it can make the boston tea party analogy hardly used...
So I'm being asked now..... how would it be possible to have such a party, that those against patents on software would most certainly attend?
Any ideas? Or is there a fear that most will wimp out?
....getting better tools?
... 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.)
That being a better and common understanding of abstraction physics. Where like with physical reality we gain more control the better we understand the physical physics, we will have more control in understanding abstraction physics better...
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 ab
....But fail to realize that the spoon is like MS windows without competition... grows fat, bloated and contains the manifestation of the user frustration function so as to make people need to upgrade the spoon....and plug up holes in it...
Forking is a better evolution process as forking is only part the the process. The other part is re-integration of new and wonderful things resulting from forking..
... only a big company like MS can code....
Honestly... if the lone coder is dead, then who forgot to tell all the lone coder FOSS developers?
if everyone breaks the patent law than they will have to build a jail big enough to house us all... Hmmm, maybe they will call it earth...
...Natural language.
... 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.)
What there is, is just the ability to create higher level abstractions. And to make computers more human friendly (Uh, computing/programmuing is the expression of the mindset of the programmer doing the coding and as such computers really are a reflection of those who create them...) we simply need to get to the core or hard reality of abstractions.
There is what I call the Microsoft manifestation of the user frustration function, which is the result of applying the mindset of "making people need you, in order to be successful"... a reflection of MS mindset...
Anyway the constant in all of this is:
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: mat
....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
perhaps we need an X prise for it to bring the price down and get it done now???
I'm a tax payer..... I don't approve of such a spending of money, expeciall considering such money and effort could be better spent on What the World Really Wants and as such reduce the need for anti-terrorism terrorism.....
People do things for reasons, even if they have to borrow or take the reason from others like this one for 9/11"... so lets instead simply remove the reasons and excuses that only support such terrorism groups to grow...
So yeah, 20 years and hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars can most certainly be better spent...than building a government owned and controlled private internet payed for by those not allowed to use it...
... is a marketing company first and formost. Second being a third party integrator of the works of others, if not law manipulators, making integration of the works of others in third place.
In their marketing they lie, they mislead, they present an illusion of their being something they are not, innovators. They use the law to manipulate others in the industry thru licensings and such agreements.
Numerious times they have been found guilty in a court of law for anti-trust violations and they general response is that such fines are part of the cost of doing business, as is the case of organized crime.
So when issues such as this article refers to comes up....
Facts?...... you want what?
OK!!
MS operates on illusion and their ability to fabricated it, if even just thru insinuation. And unfortunately, the public typically falls for it.
Is that fact enough for you all?
Licensing the internet is a good summary of what the general public would preceive of this, and MS knows it, and that is why they are doing it.
DUH!
Compatability with incompatability...
plenty of tossed out systems running plenty fast enough to run something like AROS - Amiga Research Operating System
Its all about a small and efficient OS to bring life back to old hardware. Neither of which linux or windows is.
And it even has standardized user friendly level IPC, of which neither windows or linux yet has.
But AROS is currently lacking developers contributing to it.... and it is FOSS...