Number 7

Author: 3seas

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:50:37 EDT

Subject: Computational Thinking

A term being promoted by a J.Wing from CMU.
Google for it.
I've made comments of other blogs regarding this faulty approach.

Number 6

Author: 3seas

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:46:34 EDT

Subject: Software Patents

 I've stated many times that software patents are acts of fraud. That software is provably not of 
a patentable nature.

But I'm sure many ignore me, some based on the assumption that I must be wrong because that is not 
the way anyone else see it. Nobody is agreeing to produce the proof.

The question is why?

Generally speaking, those corporations with a great deal invested in software patents don't want to
lose that investment. And it doesn't help that IBM politics (probably the biggest investor in 
software patents) supports FLOSS.

But thats only part of the problem, there is also vested interest in the methodologies of not 
providing the end users with the full set of interfaces the users really should have. You have the 
Command Line type of interface (keyboard input) and the GUI type of interface (mouse) generally 
available to the users.

The missing interface is that of the user automation interface. though there are many variations of 
this sort of interface, all of them have constraints that flasely limits the users ability to put 
things together for themselves, and usually include over complexity.

For example, general application functionality of open file, save file, close file are common and 
expected, but there is a general lack of providing the user with a common automation interface that 
the user may automate the use of this functionality along with application specific functionality 
that is generally available to the user thru the command line and/or the application GUI.

There is no excuse!! As this functionality is available to the users anyway!

The excuse of "the users don't want to do that" is a lie and arrogant and mostly just a way to hide 
the fact that users would then be able to do more for themselves, and they would when they find a 
need for it.

The babel about this that and the other way to do this, that this application can use lisp routines 
or VBA or bla bla bla is not only intentionally misleading in having to many variations of 
additional complexity, but a lame excuse for complexiflabulacating functionality the user is already 
using in far simpler modes of access.

The key here is Common automation interface between applications where the user can integrate 
application as they see fit and without having to learn VBA or what ever stack of learning all the 
different ways this program and that program and the other programs do it.

I want this application to open this file, make these modifications and save the file out as .... 
and then load that file into this other program... etc...

Programming an automation like this should not take any longer than what it would take to do the act 
manually twice.

We know this sort of automation can be done, we have seen it done on the Amiga, though it can be 
made much easier still.

But back to the subject of software patents.

So what about the anti-software patent side?

To expose the proof of why software is not patentable will include the exposure of simplicities that 
will pull the carpet out from under the pseudo software industry.

In other words the con of not letting the user do automation for themselves, that they certainly 
should be able to do, would be exposed.

Once that happens then other factors of "non-patentable" come into play, like obviousness and 
reasonable conclusion of solution direction of anyone skill in the field. I.E. one click shopping 
could have easily been done by users, though the one click would be totally in the hands and control 
of the user where the seller would only need to provide a consistant interface. Where such standards 
would have been established by the sellers community and with this the user wouldn't have to go 
through the initial process of every company they might buy from....

yeah yeah... we have pay pal... and solutions always, but these solution avoid user 
level automation.

So neither side wants to do proof of the non-patentability of software. They would rather play 
politics and milk the user base.

But that doesn't help solve the software patent problem and it certainly will not help the 
development of software that works on multi-core systems.

What is going on is similar things that have happened in history where man in general or in 
positions of power, suppress something better in exchange for personal benefit. The goal of Patents 
is to reward the creator and benefit society. But suppressing benefit to society is contrary of that 

You don't need to make one application bust up its tasks to use a multi-core processor for a 
multi-core processor to be beneficial to the user as there is the recursive nature of programming 
and many level of paralleling the use of functionality. INCLUDING at the user level if they are 

Software Patents are acts of fraud, and that is provable.

The problem here is who the parties are that are guilty of the fraud, directly and indirectly, 
intentionally and ignorantly. Or what you might say "accessory to fraud against society and the user 

Software patents will be disallowed. They are not allowed in europe because the public was made 
aware and allowed to comment and protest. But that is not the way Software came to be fraudulently 
patentable in the US. Small back alley court is where it started. 

Number 5

Author: 3seas

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:34:40 EST

Subject: Key to the bottomless pit

If the beast is man and due to his ability to use abstractions to deceive and computers are an image 
of the beast (reflecting its maker), assuming the bottomless pit is that of mans ability to apply 
endless distortions and distractions of that which is honest and actually existing, wouldn't that 
make abstraction physics the key to the bottomless pit?

For the general population to understand the physics of abstraction and how it can be applied to 
deceive and detour from honesty, would make it much harder to apply it in such a manner without 
getting exposed. This certainly includes easy to apply and otherwise safe from proof types of
deception as the only way to nullify such deception is to recognize it and see it for what it really

The trillion dollar bet will never happen again as its prevention is the wide scope application of
the formula that was held secret and caused world scope damage from being held secret. Remove the
secret and remove the damage.

One Thousand years then let lose for a little season? A little spice to life, a reminder for the
generations that did not know what it was like? 

Remove deception and allow advancement to happen without the "cannot" based IP rights laws and we 
will be able to advance fast enough to address many things. This will result in extension of our 
life span and well being. 20/20 hindsight will then see how damaging the wrongful use of the tool 
of abstraction has really been.

Number 4

Author: 3seas

Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:09:47 EST

Subject: Da Vinci code movie

Finially saw it after buying it on DVD.
Great actors, good story line, great scenery..
First time I saw it it seemed a bit corny on the finding and solving clues but 
its one of those movies they put alot of the easy to miss the first time, stuff.

Though its said to be fiction, I found it interesting what the resistance is
suppose to be in the real world against the movie. To say it in the form of a 

Are there some who actually believe that Jesus was such a different being 
from us that he could create what we consider miracles and ourselves unable 
to do? If so then what was he doing here? Certainly he wasn't expecting us to 
learn anything he was teaching if we are so incapable of understanding his 

Born of a virgin and had no continuation of family line? 


Water to wine at a wedding. No one needed to get drunk at such an occassion 
for there to be good cheer, but water swished and shaken around inside a 
container that held wine might just pick up enough color and flavor.

Walking on water. Young Jesus worked as a cerpenter and of that day boat 
building was a common carpenter job. But to learn the trade, you learn about 
water and how it and wood work together. Take a plank of wood large enough to 
use in large scafolding that might hold up 6 men or more. put it in water and 
watch was it floats but just around the surface of the water. Now walk across 
it at a quick pace, letting the friction between the wood and water slow 

And interesting fact of those times is that human eyesight was most likely as 
poor as it is today, but the difference is that today we have the technology 
of glasses.

Want to write a story other will read? Then make it interesting.

Feeding the multitudes. That's actually a very easy miracle of understanding 
simple human nature. First off people were following Jesus because he spoke 
of a better life and they wanted it. Wanted him to help bring it to them. Of 
course people are not stupid when they decide to go on a possible long journey, 
they bring things like food with them. 

What sort of life where they living that they would up and follow a stranger? 
Must have been somewhat desperate, or at least enough of a bad time to hideaway 
their food from others. They just needed an excuse to be able to eat without 
revealing they had hidden.

Jesus simply gave them the excuse with teh passing of the bread basket.

A more complicated miracle is the exodus, the parting of the sea and all that 
came before it and what followed. Every bit of it can be explained by what it 
also identifies of the environment. There was clearly volcanic activity. And 
anyone who was aware of the expected sequence would have been able to use there 
knowledge in a matter to take advantage of others not so knowledgeable. Even 
mislead them.
There was no miracle, only the understanding of the environment and how to use 
it to mislead others.

Number 3

Author: 3seas

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:44:46 EST

Subject: On software patents

Silly stuff that is.

The patent system has gotten out of hand and efforts to "reform it" are failing.
Eventually it will cave under the weight of "cannot" stand any longer. as standing gets patented as a thing.

Number 2

Author: 3seas

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:16:07 EDT

Subject: Murphys law figured out mathmatically

The formula, ((U+C+I) x (10-S))/20 x A x 1/(1-sin(F/10)), 

indicates that to beat Murphy's Law (a.k.a. Sod's Law) you need to change one of the parameter: 

U for urgency, 
C for complexity, 
I for importance, 
S for skill, 
F for frequency and 
A for aggravation. 

Or in the researchers' own words: "If you haven't got the skill to do something important, leave it 
alone. If something is urgent or complex, find a simple way to do it. If something going wrong will 
particularly aggravate you, make certain you know how to do it."  ---,6093,11009375,00.html

Number 1

Author: 3seas

Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:00:51 EDT

Subject: Software Factories Problems

In the typical spirit of MS, Software factories is written as though MS is the authority of all
software developemnt, and that their way is the only way. They even go as far as blaming the clients 
for the problems with buggy software. 

They think they are successful at software development where in fact, its not software they are 
successful at, but marketing a mysterious (to complicated for the consumers to understand) product 
to consumers. 

Its also exposing what problems MS is having inhouse.... not that those outside don't know but 
rather allow those outside to see the depth and width of MS internal development problems.

The book is writting by those inside that bubble, who can only see from within that bubble and in 
only from which ever way they are looking outward, trying to see the rest of the world.

languages, patterns, frameworks and tools....... which one doesn't fit? 

"The Languages, patterns, frameworks, and tools that provide automation today are produced by 
platform vendors abd consumed by the rest of the industry."

The one that doesn't fit is "patterns". MS uses it as a catchall word to fill in what they haven't 
or can't define.

Where in more specific text they exchange it for something that fits that instance, but this changes 
depending on where they use it.

To use an analogy of whats going on here. MS is trying to "map" the roman numeral system onto the
decimal system, but since there is no roman numeral equivanant to the zero....they have to use this 
unfitting word "pattern" in order to try and make it look like the roman numeral system can do the 
same complex math as the decimal system.

Number 0

Author: 3seas

Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 03:25:07 EDT

Subject: Blogging before it was called blogging

I was blogging before it was called blogging, using usenet newsgroups that have a much more unbiasable 
date time stamp.

Goto the archive

spyblog version: 0.8.0