Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
« May 2019 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics
Apple Fritters
Calamity
Chinadotcom and VCSY
DD to da RR
Endorsements
Facebook
GLOSSARY
Gurgle
HP and VCSY
Integroty
Microsoft and VCSY
Nobody Can Be That Stupid
Notable Opinions
Off the Wall Speculation
Panama
Pervasive Computing  «
Reference
SaaS
SOA
The DISCLAIMER
The Sneaky Runarounds
TIMELINE
VCSY
VCSY / Baseline
VCSY / Bashed
VCSY / Infotech
VCSY / MLE (Emily)
VCSY / NOW Solutions
VCSY - A Laughing Place #2
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Fighting With the Kids
Mood:  a-ok
Now Playing: "Boxing Their Ears" Parent finds a way to make kids listen (loud ringing)
Topic: Pervasive Computing

 Here is a record of a conversation on Raging Bull beginning here: http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=308936

 

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 05:09 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 3
Msg. 308936 of 308997
(Reply to 308935 by kaptainwarp)
Jump to msg. #

What is good is ending debate on what is "prior art" by declaring the first guy to file for a patent is the law. Anyone saying they had "prior art" before the patent filing will have to prove that prior art was part of a prior patent. No application? Tough luck.

In that point Emily is the first example of a XML based functional program and if nobody likes that Emily was the first applied for. End of story.

By: mrrrfk
07 Sep 2011, 05:47 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 3 Rate this post:
Msg. 308939 of 308997
(Reply to 308936 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #

"Emily is the first example of a XML based functional program and if nobody likes that Emily was the first applied for. End of story. "

Nope. Emily is just one of many XML-based scripting languages that came out when XML became a standard over a decade ago. Emily is just a specific proprietary extension of XML, that's all. There are loads of XML-based scripting languages out there. The Emily patent doesn't cover the idea of XML extensibility, it just covers Emily, an XML-based scripting language nobody wants or needs. They are a dime a dozen. Just Google "XML-based scripting languages", they were all the rage once XML became a standard over a decade ago.

ps. the Emily patent (all 40 claims) were rejected for the 9th time in case you haven't been paying attention, not that it would matter, Emily is bogus. It was for sale for years, nobody was interested. End of story.

 

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 06:02 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 3
Msg. 308944 of 308997
(Reply to 308939 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #

mirror You're wrong. That's all there is to it. It's a shame you can't show one example of the XML language being used as in a novel sense as a functional language before the time of filing.

The examiner had no problem with that contention. It's not only amazing you think you know more than the examiner it's pathetic you have to play fast foot with wording to trick readers.

Let's debate it if you feel you're right.

We're not talking extensibility. We're talking about using XML properties to describe code and using that description to write applications. Your contention Emily is just a specific proprietary extension of XML would have killed the patent long ago. Show us one place in the patent process where the examiner ever claimed that.

Your turn.

By: mrrrfk
07 Sep 2011, 06:11 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 3 Rate this post:
Msg. 308948 of 308997
(Reply to 308944 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #

Just Google "XML-based scripting languages" and you will see how common they are, Many of them have hooks (api's) into real programming languages, as does Emily, in order to do any intensive functional programming, and they can be called from XML via XML's extensibility. Emily is just one of *many* ways of doing this. Its no big deal. The patent does not cover the *concept* of extending XML to do this, just one of many ways of doing so. NOBODY WANTS OR NEEDS IT. I question whether it even works since nowhere has it ever been reviewed by any user or developer. It's probably just vaporware at this point.

Hint: zero revenues have been generated by this great product. Duh. It's bogus,until proven otherwise.

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 06:25 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 1
Msg. 308954 of 308997
(Reply to 308948 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #

Show me the first use of XML as a functional language. The USE of a scripting language (in this case XML) is according to its first intended use which was and has always been the representation of data as content. Upon that idea the representation of data as form came along later. Upon that idea... there is no flow from data as content and data as form to data as functionality and a semantic trick does not change the fact. You can google "XML-based scripting languages" all you like but the Emily examination has material supplied by the foremost XML practitioners in the art and there was NO evidence of the use of XML to represent functional code prior to Emily being filed.

Nobody cares about your statement like: "NOBODY WANTS OR NEEDS IT. I question whether it even works since nowhere has it ever been reviewed by any user or developer. It's probably just vaporware at this point."

None of that is relevant to the debate. What matters is finding a use of XML prior to 1999/2000 in which XML is used to drive a functional transformation within a processor. No. There isn't.

There is evidence of XML being used to drive the presentation of data from one data representation to another representation. That's transformation of type and covers the obviousness of representation of form. So content and form were obvious. But nobody prior to Davison filing for Emily had shown XML used as a representation of code that would execute in a processor for the purpose of driving the processor functionality. Not the processor contents or the processor configuration (current state of something like XAML even though they CALL it the eXtensible Application Markup Language - more semantic BS from giant players about to be caught in a box canyon of their own making).

Your statement here has no relevance to the debate either: "Hint: zero revenues have been generated by this great product. Duh. It's bogus,until proven otherwise. "

It wouldn't matter if not one line of Emily code was sold although we know it was used to create the distributed agent processing network for the Apollo smartcard per Jerome Svigal's specifications.

An XML Agent is the immediate demonstration of the use of XML as code and that capability has been shown numerous times in numerous places. Water does precisely that and I know how much you hate to hear that. You'll certainly spout out more irrelevant BS from your hatred but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

If you would bother to read the examiner's objections you will find he has no problem with the use of XML as code. He has problems with the description of the agent doing the functional processing on the grounds it's a virtual machine. But I believe he's made that consideration in error because the virtual machine is not the thing that is novel and VCSY is not trying to patent a virtual machine. They're trying to patent a novel processing language method and the framework that makes it work as a novel functional processing language.

"Many of them have hooks (api's) into real programming languages..."

There you go killing your own arguments. There is no "real" programming language. API's are nothing more than processing agents which can be considered virtual machines. The language is only "real" if it provides a human the opportunity to instruct the transformational processes of a processor containing an arithmetic and logic facility connected to a memory. THAT is what makes a language "real" and the Emily claims demonstrate a REAL XML functional processing language.

You know you've never won any of these arguments. I'm surprised you're even going to try. To me it shows just how diligent you are in pursuing an agenda and that agenda has nothing to do with you not owning the stock. It has everything to do with the industry realizing they missed the boat and they don't want anyone to find out.

By: mrrrfk
07 Sep 2011, 06:46 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 3 Rate this post:
Msg. 308961 of 308997
(Reply to 308957 by johnnnyri)
Jump to msg. #

I know johnnny. VCSY's own whitepaper on Emily makes it clear that it comes with a library of C functions and programmers can extend it's functionality by writing more C functions. Just like many XML-based scripting languages, Emily is just one way of extending XML with hooks into a real programming language.
Portuno likes to say that Emily is unique and magical, but it isn't. XML-based scripting/programming languages are easy to create, and nobody needs Emily or Emily's (rejected) patent to do so.

Any big software company (like microsoft) would create their own before considering Emily (what do you think XAML is?), but the fact is that most of the industry is going to continue to use real programming languages to do programming, with hooks into XML for handling XML data. So the Emily approach has already been rejected by the software industry. Developers don't like to program in XML, and certainly have no reason to consider Emily, which is used by NOBODY.

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 06:52 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 3
Msg. 308964 of 308997
(Reply to 308954 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #

mirror I did what you asked and Google teed up this gem from 2000:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/xml-perl/
XML and scripting languages
Feb 1, 2000
Manipulating XML documents with Perl and other scripting languages
Summary: In this first tutorial of his series on using scripting languages to manipulate and transform XML documents, Binary Evolution's Parand Tony Daruger takes you through the first steps of using these techniques with Perl. You'll see a method for transforming XML to HTML, followed by a simple stock trading application that uses Perl, XML, and a database to evaluate trading rules. You can apply the techniques using other scripting languages too, including Tcl and Python.

--(
Mind if I make a little enhancement?
"xml AND scripting languages"

See there? I kept the content and simply changed the form. But I didn't DO anything with the statement.

Now if I said "XML all scripting languages" I would then abstract every scripting language on earth (including your favorite Javascript) and render their functionality in XML.

In that way I could then either use the XML abstraction to run any script I like using only one language (the XML abstraction) OR I could choose to abstract the resultant XML abstraction into a human syntax and then tell any machine capable of running any scripting language how to run.

See how it's done? Did you or did you not study LISP?
)

And I might as well head you off at the pass with this because you will jump for joy with the thought you can use this for your purpose:

"Function-based substitution

Substitution-based transformations are easy to implement and understand, but don't give us the ability to implement logic. We may want to take different actions based on the contents or attributes of a tag, or connect to a database to compare the contents of the tag with the stored value. We need more than simple, one-to-one substitutions; we need the ability to perform functions for each tag.

XML::Parser provides a method for invoking functions for each tag in the XML document. For each tag, the parsing module calls a function with the tag's name. Thus we can define a set of functions that perform the transformations, connect to databases, and implement our business logic. "

Go ahead and try. I can't wait to exercise my fingers even more. You think substituting "hooks" makes something a functional language. That's why you're wrong so wrong and why Charles Goldfarb showed that there were not XML functional processing language implementations as of 2001. Only "hooks" meaning "tags" which means you're using XMl to represent data as content which happens to refer to other bodies of scripting code.

It doesn't count in the USPTO's eyes.

But go ahead and try it anyway.

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 06:54 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 1
Msg. 308965 of 308997
(Reply to 308961 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #

mirror even thought Emily relied on CGI because he was taken in by a lowballing market paper on Emily. He won't read the patent and he won't debate the patent claims. That would deny him his plausible deniability.

You should have seen him perform. It was hilarious. LOL

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 06:59 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 3
Msg. 308966 of 308997
(Reply to 308964 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #

Look at this! Another one:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xexpr/
Abstract
W3C Note 21 November 2000
"In many applications of XML, there is a requirement for using XML in conjunction with a scripting language. Many times, this results in a scripting language such as JavaScript being bound within the XML content (like the tag). XEXPR is a scripting language that uses XML as its primary syntax, making it easily embeddable in an XML document. In addition, XEXPR takes a functional approach, and hence maps well onto the syntax of XML."


Well now mirror you win...wait... almost. Noooooo... Not. Look at the date. VCSY was well over the finish line by the time this appeared.

By the time the patent application hit the street (once it had gone through the 18 month wait from application to publication) EVERYBODY KNEW. But not before. Now you can't find anybody who would testify they're doing that...except Water. I guess those guys and the US Military and MIT are just crazy.

And THAT sweety is the definition of "first to file" in a patent case.

BAAAAPPPP End of debate. You lose. LOL

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 07:00 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 1
Msg. 308967 of 308997
(Reply to 308966 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #

Gee "google XML scripting languages" Whodathunkit?

Thanks for the suggestion mirror. Any other smart moves?

By: mrrrfk
07 Sep 2011, 07:03 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 3 Rate this post:
Msg. 308969 of 308997
(Reply to 308965 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #

While Emily reles on CGI for some stuff, but they *really* rely on developers writing their own C-functions for extensibility, and even deliver a C function library as part of the Emily package. Nothing magical about that; XML cannot do complex functional programming on its own. This is according to VCSY's own whitepaper on Emily. If you have a problem with it then contact VCSY and tell them that they are liars.

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 07:07 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 2
Msg. 308970 of 308996
(Reply to 308966 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #

Oh wow. MIT. Whodathunk those eggheads would be able to see the value right?

http://www.infoloom.com/gcaconfs/WEB/paris2000/S07-02.HTM

(-- Again June 2000. Still only also-ran over the first to file finish line.

But such a prestigious home for the subject to be studied right? Right.

Want to read some of the discussion? Or is academics just not your thing? Well some of us respect "eggheads" from MIT a great deal more than navel lint so I hope we don't mind if we just ignore what you have to say and read what the experts were writing shortly after Emily was revealed.)

Most XML processing languages are double-level where a program written in a language such as Java produces output in a second language, XML. This is accomplished with formatted I/O or string processing that obscures the structure of the output. In XFA Script output is directly interleaved in the processing program making it easier to write, check, and understand.

Unlike languages where XML support was an afterthought, XFA Script was designed from the start around XML, making it ideally suited for processing XML data. There are however even more important advantages of XML-based scripting.

Most XML processing languages are double-level where a program written in a language such as Java produces output in a second language, XML. This is accomplished with formatted I/O or string processing that obscures the structure of the output. In XFA Script output is directly interleaved in the processing program making it easier to write, check, and understand.
XFA scripts are themselves just XML. This means that XFA code can be treated as data, making it easy to write scripts that manipulate other scripts. XFA Script also can make any XML data into a program by specifying the active behavior associated with each data element type.
The XML community continues to produce ever more specialized XML processing standards. With DTD's and schemas for validating data, XSL and XSLT for rendering and transforming data, and with pointers, links, paths and RDF to connect data, the overall complexity continues to soar. XFA Script is a single simple general-purpose language that can be used for all these purposes.
Although DTD's and schemas allow XML syntax to be formally described, very little has been done on the more important problem of formal specification of XML semantics. Since XFA Script is itself XML and has a clean clear semantics, it is an ideal notation for defining the semantics of XML data. An added bonus is that XFA semantic specifications can easily become executable semantic checkers.


(-- Go ahead. I dare ya. I know you're dying to continue on. Remember you're reading history from June 2000 and you haven't got a clue where it's all gone or even can go from there.)

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 07:10 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 2
Msg. 308971 of 308996
(Reply to 308969 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #

The Emily patent claims tell us Emily relies on CGI to retrieve URLs. That's all it uses CGI for. You know that. But your agenda and your bruised ego demand you make yet another play for tricking at least one more reader.

"XML cannot do complex functional programming on its own."

I'm afraid you speak before reading. First read what the expert from MIT says before you show your ignorance.

"Liars"? You mean "market speakers"??? I thought the whole realm of marketing was lying. That's what you said I think. You said marketing material like VCSY's was lies... I guess marketing material like Microsoft's was lies as well... or HP's marketing material... or Oracle's marketing material... or Apple's marketing material... all nothing but lies. Right?

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 07:12 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 2
Msg. 308972 of 308996
(Reply to 308971 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #

mirror You're lying to the readers even as we see your posts pop up. You know the answers. But you have a hidden agenda you can't afford to admit. You know the history but you won't lift a finger to educate one person because your industry demands you hold the party line.

That's why you're going to go down in history as the most ignorant person in the IT world. 'The guy who knew the truth but stuck with the liars.'

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 07:18 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 2
Msg. 308973 of 308996
Jump to msg. #

So we now find that since 2000 IBM MIT and the W3C have known about Emily and have been working on the concepts.

Of the three two are trustworthy and the other not. I guess when you're a committee tasked with kissing the butt of the next giant player in front of you the issues become... how shall I say it? Cloudy.

Playing games for over ten years. That's what's been going on. And everybody will know about it... that is IF they are willing to read material from the dotcom era and ignore the incontinent fools who rage and hype about their own technologies.

By: mrrrfk
07 Sep 2011, 07:20 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 2 Rate this post:
Msg. 308974 of 308996
(Reply to 308972 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #

Where did I lie? Emily requires C functions for its extensibility. That's what *they* say. I'm just reporting the info. If you have a problem with that then you are saying that VCSY are liars. But anyone can extend XML to do that kind of thing. It's old technology. Emily's proprietary approach is not wanted by anybody. Even if the 9-time rejected patent application is approved, it is worthless, imo.

By: mrrrfk
07 Sep 2011, 07:27 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 3 Rate this post:
Msg. 308976 of 308996
(Reply to 308973 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #

Where does MIT or the W3C ever mention Emily? You can find Emily-like concepts everywhere since they have always been obvious. Emily is just one particular implementation of extending XML is irrelevant (patented or not) to the many other approaches that have existed since XML became an text markup standard.
Nobody wants Emily. We know this already. It was for sale for years, but there was no interest. VCSY are nobodies in the tech world. Nobody wants their crap.

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 07:28 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 1
Msg. 308977 of 308996
(Reply to 308969 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #

mrrfkr Says "XML cannot do complex functional programming on its own."

Princeton disagrees per this paper written after 2003.

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~agolovin/papers/ias08.pdf
"Abstract. A number of modular robotic systems have been developed over the last decade. Such systems promise increased flexibility and robustness and lower cost over conventional robots; however programming systems with many degrees of freedom is still more an art than engineering. The complexity of programming limits the usage of such systems and the sharing of knowledge within the modular robotics community. We have previously published work on using “Phase Automata” as a programming model for chain-type modular robotic systems. In this paper, we present an XML-based scripting language for describing phase automata and complex behavior compositions."

Oh my that mrrfk sure knows his subject matter doesn't he? <--- sarcasm

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 07:35 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 2
Msg. 308978 of 308996
(Reply to 308976 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #

"You can find Emily-like concepts everywhere since they have always been obvious."

Not before the Emily patent application. And that's all that counts. And like I said the examination says nothing at all about the use of XML as a functional language being "obvious" or even "prior art". I think his problem was the appearance of an attempt to patent some virtual machine claims.

Why are you so OBVIOUS in your errors? Don't you even bother to read what's made available to you? Or are you too busy googling trying to find something to prove me wrong? Go ahead. Show us something that says you're right. I have and there's simply nothing there to support your position.

Now I think I could find stuff that at first glance makes it SEEM to support your position. Maybe that's your problem; you simply don't have the experience to know what you're reading. OK. I get it. You're not lying. You simply don't know anything about the subject.

I would have thought you being here every day for ten years you might learn at least SOMEthing about the subject matter. I guess I over estimated you and your motivations.

"Nobody wants Emily." Irrelevant in the USPTO. So why don't you say at least SOMEthing of relevance or importance? Are you going to just sit there and let me completely trash your perceived reputation?

By: mrrrfk
07 Sep 2011, 07:37 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 3 Rate this post:
Msg. 308979 of 308996
(Reply to 308977 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #

Moonpunk, whenever they say "XML-based" they are talking about XML that is extended by real programming languages. XML is a mark-up language, not a programming language. It cannot do functional programming on its own.

By: moonpunk
07 Sep 2011, 07:40 PM EDT
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 308980 of 308996
(Reply to 308979 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #
mirror Easy to win the debate. Simply show me in the patent examination documents for Emily where the examiner brings up your contentions.

See how easy? I can't find it. You're therefore either smarter than the examiner or you don't know what you're talking about. What do we all think about that?

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 9:58 PM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, 7 September 2011 10:10 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Monkey see monkey doo.
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: "Spark Plug Polka" Dancers undergo electric shock therapy without commercial interruption (ritual mutilation))
Topic: Pervasive Computing
Take these 10 principles from the manifesto and present them as the opposite stand. That's what Microsoft, Google and Amazon will have to sell to the industry and the market. IBM has a very easy job and has a marketing hammer by which to allow clients and the market to ask the recalcitrants critical questions.

Simply applying a "not" in front of each sentence subject sheds light on the way traditional software companies have done business and how they want to continue operating.

1. User centric systems [DO NOT] enrich the lives of individuals; education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.

2. Philanthropic initiatives can [NOT] greatly increase the well-being of mankind.

3. Openness of standards, systems and software [DOES NOT] empower(s) and protect(s) users.

4. Transparency [DOES NOT] foster(s) trust and accountability; decisions should [NOT] be open to public collaboration and scrutiny and [NOT] never be made "behind closed doors". (The double negative means "decisions... should be made behind closed doors" to the anti-manifesto player.)

5. Interoperability [DOES NOT] ensures effectiveness of cloud computing as a public resource; systems must [NOT] be interoperable.

6. Representation of all stakeholders is [NOT] essential; interoperability and standards efforts should [NOT] not be dominated by vendor(s). (The double negative means "interoperability and standards efforts should be dominated by vendors"  to the anti-manifesto player.)

7. Discrimination against any party for any reason is [NOT] unacceptable.

8. Evolution is [NOT] an ongoing process in an immature market; standards may [NOT] take some time to develop and coalesce.

9. Balance of commercial and consumer interests is [NOT] paramount.

10. Security is [NOT] fundamental, [NOT] not optional. (The double negative means "Security IS optional" to the anti-manifesto player.)

Of course, each party will argue they are NOT putting a "[NOT]" against each point. They will argue for more finesse. But, each finessing point will require a rationale made public and arguing against each of these points in public will damage each party's future posture.

IBM must have a large list of notable players already signed on to force these anti players to engage in "negotiations". Negotiations for what? What strength does the manifesto have behind it and how damaging will an anti-manifesto be for these players in the future?

The manifesto is a baseball bat corporations may now use against those who are posturing to build universal platforms but are angling to present proprietary lock-in platforms.

Google and Amazon and Salesforce, to name the top few, have found themselves unwittingly forced into posturing precisely like Microsoft. Not a good thing when you're trying to differentiate yourself for the beginning of a new age.

What do they have to fear from these?

IBM
Sun Microsystems 
VMWare 
AT&T 
Telefonica 
Cisco Systems
EMC 
SAP 
Advanced Micro Devices 
Elastra 
rPath 
Juniper Networks 
Red Hat 
Hyperic 
Akamai 
Novell 
Sogeti 
Rackspace 
RightScale 
GoGrid 
Aptana 
CastIron 
EngineYard 
Eclipse 
SOASTA 
F5 
LongJump 
NC State 
Enomaly 
Nirvanix 
OMG 
Computer Science Corp.
Boomi 
Reservoir 
Appistry 
Heroku

Plenty.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:51 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Saturday, 18 October 2008
Mumps and/or Chicken Pox?
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: Dueling Diseases - Disfunctional family contracts a paradox of pathogens (acute itchybitches)
Topic: Pervasive Computing

This Microsoft lawyer can make this statement:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10068367-56.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

"I actually think the war between proprietary and open source is a thing of the past."
--Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft intellectual property lawyer

...because Microsoft now has licensed use of technology that renders all distinctions about platforms and placement "arbitrary". And who better than an intellectual property lawyer to know?


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 4:11 PM EDT
Updated: Saturday, 18 October 2008 4:18 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 15 September 2008
I dug this out of the trash and put it on Ebay... thus the mansion.
Mood:  lazy
Now Playing: Airsick - Hedge fund hogs find their own redirection lands in their lap (food and fun)
Topic: Pervasive Computing

I was asked to try to present what VCSy technology does as simply as possible. Well, I've been digging through some old files and I came upon a diagram I did last year and thought I might offer it for your viewing here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I realize this is a very simplified schematic, but, that's what 744/521 does. It simplifies.

Let me know if you have any questions.


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 11:51 PM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 16 September 2008 12:06 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 16 July 2007
Tickle me Elbow.
Mood:  energetic
Topic: Pervasive Computing

An interesting bit of reference knowledge:

An Overview: Where Things Stand in IBM, Novell, and Red Hat
Sunday, July 15 2007 @ 10:01 AM EDT

I thought it would be useful, judging from some recent confusion in the media, to highlight the latest goings on in all the ongoing cases in the SCO saga all on one page, so everyone can follow the bouncing ball. That will mean some slight repetition for some of us, but it also will make it easier for those who don't follow the SCO saga as intently as we do to grasp the current picture.

The very latest is that the court has signed [PDF] the stipulated adjustments the parties proposed to the pre-trial schedule in Novell, there was a SCO status report [PDF] filed in Red Hat and here's Red Hat's latest [PDF], and there was a goofed up filing in IBM, where SCO filed its memorandum in opposition to Novell's evidentiary objections (2nd objections; Novell reply to SCO) in the IBM docket by mistake, and IBM has asked for a 30-day extension of various pretrial scheduled items. But now, let's look at the overview to see how they all interrelate, and I'll also try to give you a picture of what trial preparation in Novell is probably like right about now.

You can read the rest at Groklaw.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070715072440971


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:14 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
IBM wants to know. LOL
Mood:  hug me
Now Playing: 'Making Tools' Stone age tribe hammered by robots. (Fossils / Freebies)
Topic: Pervasive Computing

Question:

IBM (actually an O'Reilly Editor is asking) wants to know: "What are all you 'XML Programmers' using for tools? Rocks tied to sticks?"

XML and Java technology: Low-level or high-level XML APIs?

How much control do you want over your XML?

Brett D. McLaughlin, Sr. (brett@newInstance.com), Author and Editor, O'Reilly Media, Inc.
29 May 2007

Not many years ago, the options for working with XML were limited essentially to SAX, DOM, or a home-brewed API. With hundreds of different developer-friendly APIs today, though, have developers lost some of their ability to manipulate XML?

Here's the deal: I'm looking to stir the pot a bit. This is obviously not a tip that is overflowing with working code, because I wonder who really does use working XML code these days, and what API (or APIs) they use. Is it true that hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of you out there still plug away with SAX and DOM, comfortable writing your startProcessingInstruction() method, or have data binding and helper APIs completely taken over? I'm curious, as is much of the developerWorks editorial staff.

And arguably more importantly, do you believe you still have the control and power over your XML? I pose this question particularly to programmers who have worked with XML since the early days when SAX was your only option for speedy XML reading, and DOM was the only choice if you wanted to deal with an XML document in object form. Do you find yourself working at a higher level, and are you OK with that? Or have we all become Turbo Pascal programmers while only a select few guys are popping the stack over on their ASM terminals? Please, get involved in this discussion—hop on over to the forum and start posting, and let's see what everyone thinks. XML programmers: declawed or not?

I would like to know a few answers as well, like, how do all you developers feel watching Java take on XML while .Net sits in the closet?


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:28 PM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 29 May 2007 3:39 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 21 May 2007
When 'I'll be done before you know it." really means something
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: 'Perking Punchy' Cafeinated office workers finish careers ahead of schedule. (Office Party)
Topic: Pervasive Computing

This will be a frontal assault on what makes IT happen so IT can be done for less with fewer.

IBM's Power6 spotted bashing Oracle at 4.7GHz

Sweaty database

Published Sunday 20th May 2007 04:33 GMT
Research library - All papers free to download.

The first public indication of IBM's Power6 muscle has arrived courtesy of Oracle.

The Register has spotted four 4.7GHz - yep, you read that right - Power6 chips cranking on Oracle 11i. The speedy chips confirm IBM's boasting that Power6 would arrive near 5GHz. They also show that IBM's customers have a lot to look forward to in terms of raw performance.

With 4.7GHz chips (4MB of L2 and 32MB of L3 cache), an IBM p570 server showed an average response time of .625 seconds when handling requests from 2,100 users. That compares to a p570 with 2.2GHz Power5+ chips that had a response time of .983 seconds for 2,000 users.

You can catch all the benchmarks here until Oracle notices this story (Update: Oracle has removed the results). We've also taken the liberty of copying a PDF report on the results for you here.

The benchmarks arrive just ahead of IBM's Power6 server launch. The rumor mill says IBM will unveil its Power6 gear, starting with midrange systems such as the p570, on Tuesday.

Thus far, IBM has been reluctant to discuss the Power6-based systems' performance. But, with chips running at 4.7GHz, IBM should clean up on a wide variety of benchmarks even if customers don't recompile their software as is needed for absolute best results with Power6.

A number of skeptics have told us that IBM will struggle in the near-term to produce 4GHz+ chips in volume. IBM, however, has been telling customers that it will have plenty of speedy chips to go around. (It looks like IBM will offer systems with 3.5GHz, 4.2GHz and 4.7GHz versions of Power6 from what we hear.)

IBM had once planned to ship Power6-based servers in 2006. It could use some new gear to go up against Sun and HP's high-end gear, which have been selling well in recent months. ®

Anyone want to bet the hardware industry feels threatened by IBM's green Power strategy?

 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:02 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, 21 May 2007 3:14 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
I tried to bring up the financial system. Oh, yeah, we turned that one off.
Mood:  caffeinated
Now Playing: 'Saving Money' High tech engineers come up with money saving idea; Don't use anything.
Topic: Pervasive Computing

"...experts plead...". Yeah. Now, there's a solution just crying out for implementation. Pay high priced IT people to sit there at the end of each day and turn servers off. "Hey, aren't we going to need that server?" "I dunno. It's on the turn-off-every-day list."

Great planning.

Now I think you might understand why IBM's Power series with empath will be so important for server farms...  

Turn off servers to go green, experts plead

http://www.itpro.co.uk/news/113698/turn-off-servers-to-go-green-experts-plead.html
Posted by Rene Millman at 6:21PM, Monday 21st May 2007

Expert urges companies to adopt Japanese practices and turn servers off at night.


European companies need to follow their Japanese counterparts in tackling datacentre space, power, and heat issues by switching servers off every evening, according to an expert.

Bernhard Brandwitte, director of enterprise servers product marketing at Fujitsu Siemens Computers said that turning off servers could save the expense of running systems.

"It may seem radical because organisations are told never to touch a running system. However, organisations can use combined storage devices to switch off the processing core and save money," he said.

Brandwitte admitted that this would only be suitable for non-mission-critical applications but companies could still save money by using virtualisation to consolidate physical servers. He said in doing so an organisation's could reduce its carbon footprint.

"Management software also enables administrators to power systems up or down remotely and transfer the processing load to poorly utilised servers," said Brandwitte.

"However, we must not just rely on this development in the data centre though. We must also learn from our Japanese counterparts and share best practice."

Others said that while projects such as the Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program aimed to replace legacy heating, cooling and lighting systems with more efficient systems, companies should not overlook IT systems and equipment.

"Research shows that IT is responsible for up to 40 per cent of a typical large UK enterprise's carbon footprint," said David Elwen, director at IT consultancy DMW. "With near exponential growth in IT hardware sales predicted, this footprint will only increase."

He said there were many simple measures that can be taken to reduce the corporate IT carbon footprint.

"Attacking the most power-hungry applications such as IT servers is where the most difference will be made," he said. "Contrary to popular belief, Google found that by turning up the temperature on their IT servers not only reduced the failure rate, but saved energy usage by turning off their cooling equipment."

Elwen said this was the sort of green policy which companies "should be considering first and foremost."

Hey, how about looking for some innovation first? 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:40 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, 21 May 2007 2:44 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 15 May 2007
Looks like a bobcat... or maybe a pussycat named bob...
Mood:  crushed out
Now Playing: 'Sniffing the Old Chisselin' Trail' Tracker noses into a pile of information. (Cowboys and Indianas)
Topic: Pervasive Computing


Branding by Bell
Color me Contented

First, this RagingBull VCSY board post by POSCASHFLOW

By: POSCASHFLOW
15 May 2007, 12:52 PM EDT
Msg. 185256 of 185261

Speaking of Virtualization ...............................

Verizon believes in it also!!!!!!

Participating in Virtual Job Fair Can Lead to Real Career Opportunities at Verizon

Job Seekers Can Take Part in the First-Ever 'Second Life' Job Fair to Apply for a Variety of Positions From Network Engineer to Fiber-Optic Technician
May 15, 2007: 11:22 AM EST

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NYTU13415052007-1.htm

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)

- - - - -
View Replies »

Then this:

Maw! Where's the teat pullers?  Bessy Lynn's bellowing bad and I cain't find the battery heated teat pullers.

They's in the drawer next to the nightstick, Walter. Dammit you'd be taken over by termites if I didn't put your wood leg in the pantry.

That cow is in bad need of milkin' and I cain't pull so much as a frozen fuzzy without my... oh... here they is. Nevermind! I'll be back with breakfast...

tromp tromp tromp tromp ...

click

...and today's farm report is brought to you by Fuzzy's Wuzzies. If you aren't happy with the way the day is going today, drift back to yesteryear dreaming of whut used to be in your Fuzzy Wuzzy bubblebath and toiletty water....

click

Well, Regis, I thought they pointed the same direction all the time...
ha ha ha

Uh... noooo... hellooo.. they point the direction you're walking!
ha ha ha ha

Dammit you nitwit, I know that. What I mean is how do they get twisted around like that?

Usually bargain basement underwares...
ha ha ha ha ha 

click

... hog bellies are rubbing the dirt... chittlin prices have dropped to an all time low and sausage is being sold for what used to pass as sandwich meat....

click

... of the USDA recommends serving your children the food first before you offer it to customers. That way, your customers will be assured of having a nutritious meal without fear of anti-freeze poisoning...

click

... in other words, folks with such skills as Network Engineer to Fiber-Optic Technician will be able to find what you need in this first ever Second-Life fair ... why? most likely because those are the folks who've been using the development to buildout systems in place in their parent companies... namely IBM and Verizon and Second-Life...

click

...tromp tromp tromp tromp 

I had to bring the cow in the house because the teat pullers got froze up. Want a biskit, Bessy Lynn? Heh heh. That's funny. Did you hear that maw? I said 'Want a biskit Bessy Lynn?' and everybody knows cows don't eat biskits. Make her a green omelet and some of that pet pig we had last Friday.

We outta eggs? I'll go squeeze a chicken or two.

tromp tromp tromp tromp ...

click

... thaaaaat's right folks! Mad Hatter's Day bash with all out in the parking lot and no plinking at the salesmen allowed! That's right folks, this going out of business bonanza by Gargantuan Garbage Beat and Bash is going to be a blow-out. Yessirree biggest butt-bringing in the history of the tri-county area. You'll have to go as far as Nugsville to find a finer lineup of stars...

click

sigh 

 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:55 PM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 15 May 2007 3:02 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 8 May 2007
Wake maw up and tell her somebody went and re-branded the whole herd.
Mood:  caffeinated
Now Playing: 'High Noon' Inhabitants of Texas town gets ready to eat everybody's lunch. (Family Values)
Topic: Pervasive Computing

If Microsoft and all their developers and clients want a fight, let's rumble and get it over with. Put them all in a box of their own making.

 

October 27th, 2006

Why IBM’s patent suit against Amazon could be bad news for the entire Web

Posted by David Berlind @ 1:34 pm Categories: General, Web Technology, Legal
In Focus » See more posts on: software patents

 

For years, there have been a handful of companies trying to figure out how to erect a toll booth on the Web, if not the Internet altogether. In other words, they've been looking for some way to ensure that the Internet or some portion thereof can't work unless they get to collect a royalty on the majority of the Internet's traffic. Now, if a patent infringement suit filed by IBM against Amazon.com holds up in court, Big Blue may have finally found a way to collar the Web (or most of it).  It may be a decade before we know the answer.

Whether it was simply the prescience of IBM's engineers right around the time that the Web was born, or just a stroke of serendipity (perhaps connected with IBM's original association with the Prodigy online service), IBM appears to have a patent for online advertising.  And now, nearly a decade and a half after IBM filed for the patent, and long after the online advertising environment has matured to a point that it's generating (in aggregate) billions of dollars for everybody from small businesses to Google, IBM's patent infringement suit against Amazon is the equivalent of Big Blue saying "Excuse me everyone, we've got something very important to say." Very important indeed if you own or operate a Web site with advertisements on it.

According to IBM's patent on a "Method for presenting advertising in an interactive service":

A method for presenting advertising in an interactive service provided on a computer network, the service featuring applications which include pre-created, interactive text/graphic sessions is described. The method features steps for presenting advertising concurrently with service applications at the user terminal configured as a reception system. In accordance with the method, the advertising is structured in a manner comparable to the service applications enabling the applications to be presented at a first portion of a display associated with the reception system and the advertising presented at a second portion. Further, steps are provided for storing and managing advertising at the user reception system so that advertising can be pre-fetched from the network and staged in anticipation of being called for presentation. This minimizes the potential for communication line interference between application and advertising traffic and makes the advertising available at the reception system so as not to delay presentation of the service applications. Yet further the method features steps for individualizing the advertising supplied to enhance potential user interest by providing advertising based on a characterization of the user as defined by the users interaction with the service, user demographics and geographical location. Yet additionally, advertising is provided with transactional facilities so that users can interact with it.

Gulp.

I am not a lawyer. And the document is very very long. But translated, the text appears broad enough to include any Web page that has an advertisement in one spot and some information in another. It further appears to cover the sort of caching that browsers routinely do for all images, but in this case, when the images being cached are advertisements (eg: the images found in banner ads). Also, if I read this correctly, it covers contextual advertising. You know, the kind that picks different advertisements to display based on what's in the information part of the screen. Google has a name for this. It's called AdSense. ZDNet was contextually delivering ads in the late 1990's. Finally, it appears as though the patent even covers the idea of being able to click on ads or buy something online. The net result is that IBM could get to charge a tax on just about every page being displayed on the Web (I'm not exactly sure what percentage of all pages are ad-bearing. But it's a lot).

There are a lot of directions the conversation can take now that IBM has suprised us all with this patent. For example, define "advertisement."  Or, is there a bit of hypocrisy here given the way IBM has, over the last year, been so vocal with respect the benefits of open standards vs. encumbered technologies (eg: royalties and execution of license agreements) as they apply to computing (productivity computing and the Open Document Format to be specific). Then there's the discussion about whether or not interactive advertising, which is really no more than a business process, should be patentable. Emphasis on should. Not if. Currently, based on what the US Patent and Trademark allows, business processes are patentable. In fact (another twist to the conversation), Amazon itself requires a license before on-line merchants can use a business process known as 1-Click that it has patented. For example, according to the Terms of Sale for Apple's iTunes Music Store:

1-Click is a registered service mark of Amazon.com, Inc., used under license. 1-Click is a convenient feature that allows you to purchase from the iTunes Store with a single click of your mouse. 1-Click purchasing may be activated by selecting the "Don't ask me about buying … again" check box in the "Are you sure you want to buy and download … ?" dialog box that appears when a "Buy" button is clicked. (You may reset this selection at any time by clicking "Reset Warnings" in your Account.) When 1-Click purchasing is activated, clicking the "Buy" button will start the download immediately and complete your purchase transaction without any further steps.

Over the coming days and weeks, I will probably venture down one of those paths. But the one that is most important today has more to do with IBM's choice of defendant. Looking back on the aforementioned abstract, Amazon's Web site touches on the core part as well as the optional parts (caching, transactional, stuff, etc.). In fact, I can't help but wonder if IBM's patent doesn't consitute prior art that either invalidates the 1-Click patent or, at the very least, subjugates it to IBM's patent. But again, I'm not a lawyer.  

To no avail, IBM has apparently been trying to get Amazon to reach an amicable out-of-court deal since 2002. In getting Amazon to license its patent, be it amicably or through an infringement suit, IBM can establish a precedent that the rest of the industry would have little choice but to follow. 

Think of it this way. IBM could lose in which case its legal investment would be a completely sunk cost with no return on investment. But if IBM wins, the first and most important thing is that Amazon can afford to pay in which case, the lawsuit itself would yield a very handsome return on legal investment. But the return doesn't stop there. 

It stands to reason that if Amazon, with all of its resources, can't defend itself against one of IBM's patent infringement suits, then no one can. At that point, the investment (in order to get others to pay up) drops significantly to the cost of a PC, a word processor, and someone who knows how to run mail merge. The letter that goes out (certified mail, just to be sure) starts something like this:

Dear Web site operator,

As you may have heard, we hold a patent on interactive advertising that, even after appeal, has been upheld by the highest court of the land in our lawsuit against Amazon.com.  This letter is to inform you that, based on our calculations, you owe us $x million in back pay.  But, in an effort to be fair (and so as not to put you out of business), we're willing to waive the back pay as long as you agree to the reasonable licensing terms articulated in attached Appendix A.  Should you choose to take the same path Amazon picked (and lost), you cannot expect us to waive the back pay.

As we're sure you understand, IBM keeps close guard on its intellectual property and we will spare no expense in preventing its misappropriation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at one of the numbers or email addresses provided below. Otherwise, we look forward to receiving a signed and notarized copy of the attached license by the end of the month.  

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

You see. Somewhere, in the legal department at IBM, a laser printer is warmed up and ready to start printing million dollar bills. All Amazon has to do is sign a license. Willfully or forcefully, it doesn't matter. Once that happens, it's relatively easy to predict which companies are in IBM's mail merge file: the ones with money and the ones with ad bearing pages or networks. Let's see. That's just about every big online brand there is.

Not good (well, if you own IBM stock, it could be good). 

 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 10:07 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older