Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Let's Do the RagingBull TOS Dance...

The Questions is: What are the bashers trying to hide? What truth are they trying to hide? That they lie? That they obfuscate the truth? That they only post to confuse issues? And so when they're called out, why do they just get the posts TOS'd and deleted?

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:17 am

Dear morrie33,

This is an official warning that you have violated Raging Bull's Terms of Service as detailed below: Personal Attack/Harassment Message you posted: (Board: VCSY Post number: 203003)


Why's rheemer so upset? I'm a LONG. I'm ecstatic that I can buy more at these levels. Another filing is upcoming. I'm not expecting any new news, but guess what, VCSY is still alive, in business, making over $6 million a year, and it's less than .02. I know what they have in the pipeline. I know what the possibilities are. As long as it stays at this level, I just keep buying more because I know it won't be at this level forever. All it takes is one of these connections to be made public. And then what .10, .20, .30, .40? And I'm not even including the MSFT case. That's secondary to the licensing deals VCSY will make. Yes, teapot will say “where are they?” And I'll reply, “I don't care right now, because I know they're there, and if they were public, I couldn't continue to buy more at these levels. So I'm glad they're not public yet.” It's called patience. 7+ years for me, and I'll put in more months and more years even, because the payoff is going to be HUGE, whenever it is, and I can wait. That's why I'm happy. Most LONGS are. rheemer, on the other hand, isn't here to be happy.

Mon, 12 Nov 2007 6:20 pm

An Email from Dan:

This keeps getting TOSsed from the Yahoo/Microsoft board.
Does the firing of CIO Stuart Scott signal a VCSY settlement?

On the same day(Nov 2nd) that VCSY and Microsoft were in a hearing over the lawsuit, Microsoft fired their CIO Stuart Scott. I can't see them firing him if they planned to let this go to trial, he would ultimately become their worst nightmare as a VCSY witness if it went to trial. IMO.

Does that mean we should hear of a settlement? I would think sooner or later. The whole idea of firing Stuart Scott is to keep the top guys in management out of the suspicion and you set the new guy up to take the fall.

That's why I(Port's view) think it's like this:

If I was Ballmer I would let the lower guys on the totem pole in the company carry out the plan and then have a way out when the lawyers said the discovery wasn't going to be going Microsoft's way. The top guy would be the CIO in charge of new technology and that's what Scott was. Markevich was the guy in charge of the Microsoft infrastructure and Scott was the guy in charge of new technology in Microsoft for using before it went out to customers.
So everybody below Scott would be using VCSY technology and only Scott and some engineers and laywers would know. That way Ballmer could wait until the point in the case where the lawyers said "we're not going to be able to beat this" and then he could fire Scott for some company "violation" he got conned into and poof the trouble would go away.

What would Scott say? Ballmer could say they found out he was using VCSY technology and they got rid of him the most unembarassing way they could and then he could tell the lawyers to cut a deal.

"Keeping people quiet" never works. You have to "Keep people stupid" and then cut their throats when the investigation gets too close. Poof no problem.

...fired November 2, 2007 with only explanation: "fired for violating company policies".


The one guy most central to any discovery efforts in VCSY v MSFT fired on the same day a ruling was to be given on the discovery phase of VCSY v MSFT.

Very odd.

Microsoft put out a news article about Scott taking on co-CIO role with Ron Markezich December 5, 2006. One day before VCSY returned to OTCBB from SEC delisting. Patrick Tinley, CEO of CDC/Ross was fired the same day.

Scott had left GE and taken the Microsoft position July 2005.

VCSY was cleared by SEC investigation begun December 1, 2004 - one day after VCSY was granted the 6826744 patent.

Very very odd.
_________________________________________________________________________________ 12 Nov 2007 2:12 pm

Dear morrie33, Personal Attack/Harassment Message you posted: (Board: VCSY Post number: 202791)


Keep the price low. I'm buying more too. I love the bashers. Ignorance personified. And they're doing all of us LONGS a service by helping to keep the price down here. Well, WADE is keeping the price down here, but when it starts rising the bashers bash it down. Thank you for my early XMAS present.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 12 Nov 2007 1:56 pm

Dear morrie33, Personal Attack/Harassment Message you posted: (Board: VCSY Post number: 202805). Further warnings will result in suspension or deletion of your account.
I am a LONG. I don't care who buys VCSY, when they buy VCSY or how much they buy VCSY. I am only here for my concerns and to protect my money from liars such as rheemer and tepe. They only want to steal your shares. They are negative. They don't own any shares. They lie, they cheat, they will steal your shares.

Mon, 12 Nov 2007 1:48 pm

Dear morrie33, This is an official warning that you have violated Raging Bull's Terms of Service as detailed below: Personal Attack/Harassment Message you posted: (Board: VCSY Post number: 202802). Further warnings will result in suspension or deletion of your account.
tepe and rheemer are dishonest and unscrupulous. They lie. They cheat. They steal. They are immoral. They are not shareholders. Yes, they might have 5 or 10 shares so they can legally say they are shareholders, but they're here for one purpose only to lie, to cheat and to steal away your shares from you.

Friday, November 9, 2007

Where's Waldo? Where's D.B. Cooper? Where's Stuart Scott?

By: waitin-on-news

08 Nov 2007, 04:32 PM EST

Msg. 202500 of 202722
(This msg. is a reply to 202493 by DC-Steve.)
Jump to msg. #

Here's another article that shows DC-Steve and tepe don't know anything about what Scott did or they aren't reading so they can just say what they want and hope people don't read. They want people to think he was just a regular CIO so he wouldn't know anything about VCSY technology but Microsoft says the IT department worked in development.;jsessionid=Z0Z4QBMNPZCTIQSNDLRCKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=201806860

Scott noted that the IT organization now spends almost 45% of its budget on new product development (as opposed to maintenance and ongoing support), a notable improvement from 30% in the past. Turner, asked to point to areas Microsoft IT can still improve, said, "I'd like you to be up around 65% application development spending."

If Scott's IT initiatives sound a lot like Microsoft's software marketing strategy, they are. He's expected to be the first implementer of any technology coming to market

The job also means keeping a step ahead of a group of employees who don't think twice about writing their own code or provisioning their own server if they have an IT need.

By: waitin-on-news

08 Nov 2007, 07:48 PM EST

Msg. 202541 of 202722
(This msg. is a reply to 202500 by waitin-on-news.)
Jump to msg. #

Here's the kicker that shows Scott would be the first to try out any VCSY technology Microsoft had. "If Scott's IT initiatives sound a lot like Microsoft's software marketing strategy, they are. He's expected to be the first implementer of any technology coming to market "

It in here.;jsessionid=Z0Z4QBMNPZCTIQSNDLRCKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=201806860

Then in email morrie33 wrote to his fellow longs:

Just a thought; if MSFT was fighting the VCSY case tooth and nail, wouldn't you want someone like Scott still at MSFT and still very loyal to MSFT because they're paying his bills...? If he is an important figure in this case, why fire him and get him angry if his words and testimony could come back to screw you? But, if MSFT had settled and/or were working on a settlement that was almost done, and Scott was one of the architect's of this problem, one of the reason MSFT is going to have to settle this case, his firing wouldn't harm MSFT. The case is settled. He won't have to testify. MSFT could use a scapegoat now because the case is over or will be over, in a sense. Just a thought. If VCSY can subpoena this guy in a court case, he would be VCSY's best friend because MSFT fired him. So...the move really doesn't make much sense to MSFT if this guy is an important cog as others are making him out to be. Now MSFT is full of ego, and they do a lot of things that don't make sense, but this seems like suicide in this court case if it moves forward. Conversely, if MSFT settles. They need to drop their "infringement" in someone's lap. Just strange. And strange timing on top of it.

Port responded:

I agree with your points. Now, plug Scott in as the scapegoat set up to perform the infringing technology integration in 2005 and bounced now. Why? Gates and Ballmer can blame any discovered infringement on their go-to technology guy.

Scott is the one who was the key guy in new technology introduction. The minions could have purged all their work when VCSY got the Siteflash patent and re-introduced the concepts when Scott came on board. Scott then becomes the guy responsible for bringing "that technology" into Microsoft after the patent was granted.

That allows Ballmer to know his company will have the tech in play as he needs it and also allows him to have righteous indignation to find the tech is VCSY patented technology when it becomes obvious they're going to have to settle with VCSY.

The introduction of various elements within this past week is difficult to explain if Microsoft intends to fight VCSY. At some point VCSY is going to call foul on 521 if the fight is in full force.

Then POSCASH wrote:
Hey Morrie!
All I can say is I like your thoughts and all of this speculation does make sense.
If true, it could be a best seller as a book deal! LOL
Interesting also that this topic of S. Stuart being fired has really got the bashers
in a frenzy!
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 08:57:45 -0800 From: port Subject: Re: FW: scott at MSFT
Microsoft has been making announcements this week that are bound to get them in deeper if they're intent on fighting VCSY. I can't explain what they're doing because it sounds like they went nuts if they really are going to fight.

This only makes sense with a settlement. It does not make sense without a settlement. It's almost like Microsoft is settling in along with Google, Adobe and IBM as far as their subdued marketing and marking time with the competitors:

It’s surprising to me how little Microsoft is doing to publicize the Windows Live APIs and tools that it is making available to developers. Instead, the Redmondians are letting Google steal all the thunder — while simultaneously hoping to siphon a little of Google’s momentum by choosing a “Fire” based name for the upcoming Microsoft Silverlight developers’ workshop…Microsoft Silverlight Fire Starter vs. Google’s OpenSocial Campfire.

I think what happened to Scott was Ballmer ejecting his plan to bring the technology in in case the VCSY folded (he would have had the tech ready to go) and now he needs to look like his technology people are doing brand new work.

BUT. If Scott catches on that he was a pawn, this kind of strategy could blow up in Ballmer's face. It's all very confusing and that's why it's hard to track this kind of thing without somebody coughing up some real information. That's why the rumors need to be wrung out.

And finally, to be fair to the Idiot Brigade, their Lieutenant Moron spoke up:

By: john_carlton02

09 Nov 2007, 08:21 AM EST

Msg. 202565 of 202652
(This msg. is a reply to 202557 by waitin-on-news.)

perhaps morrie should spend less time hacking out ridiculous emails & thinking more about what he'd like to comment on.

scott is likely of no importance. If he was the smoking gun like you lunatics like to make him out to be, MSFT would've transferred him out of the country & out of range of the court system.

I get amusement every time one of you nitwits posts a conspiracy theroy.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Two Emails. Port and POSCASH regarding General Atlantic


Hello Morrie!

I wanted to run yhid by you and Portuno. I saw this post on the YHOO/MSFT board and something caught my eye! Is Network Solutions owned by General Atlantic getting ready to launch a Worldwide advertising campaign or am I nuts?

Here is the post:

Hey, I'm "" - And, I'm on another interesting Site ....And I'm part of the reason why MSN will "miss" the CIGAR with facebook, on Tuesday! And if you check my Privacy Policy, you can read about your opt-out "option" for "cookies", that we provide: "To opt-out of other behavior targeting programs not associated with Pulse 360, [click here] for the National Advertising Initiative (NAI) opt-out tool."

And the Link (that's the [click here]...that's provided in the above statement), is as follows:

Oh, and I must advise that all fellow members of the NAI have "access" to (yes, are compatible with) Looksmart's AdCenter (along with the "bid4KeyWords" alternative to Google's Adsense) and in addition, ALL members of the NAI allow publishers and advertisers, to "fully control their campaigns in all facets including their daily spend" ....

And the news is, that "Quigo" have just joined our growing membership (and AOL were already heavily "involved" with the NAI, through it's "" and "Tacoda") Facebook will choose us with the "Bid4Keywords" platform (provided through Looksmart's AdCenter) on Tuesday as most ALL Major Ads Agencies will then have access to Facebook, including Yahoo, MSN [through ATLAS] and Google, (yes even Google), through Double Click's "Performics" ...... <>
> "...Facebook will choose ......the "Bid4Keywords" platform ...." Well .....They'd be foolish not to, wouldn't they? After-all, they have been found to have been testing Ads through "ME" ( of late, now haven't they? Yes ....It should be a GREAT week for Looksmart's shareholders ...Finally!!!!! Re: I'm "" - And, I'm another interesting Site

< "'s audience is one of the largest, most respected and highly qualified on the Web and is a great addition to our network," said Lance D. Podell, chief executive officer of Seevast, Pulse 360's parent company. "It is clear that the Web's biggest and best sites require a partner with deep expertise to drive value for advertisers and publishers alike. We were thrilled to be chosen as a partner for and are confident that our advertisers will benefit from access to this world-class audience."

> Yes, that's Seevast that "owns" me ......Just as they "own" who have linked with DDN. Many "relationships" have recently formed, within the "Domain Space" ...... We can put "The Weather" out on ALL those ("millions") of Domain Name Sites, plus other "vortal-ised" Article Content .... relative to each "name" (from and with Ads, of course!! Sell them like 'plots on the moon" ....Cheapest @ $750.00 each, I'd imagine ...? I'd sell them by auction, but we'll get to that "point", (the "how to"), some other time.... <> THREE MILLION !!!!! (owned by the Seevast Corporation,) say they have customers that include savvy investors, Web entrepreneurs and forward-thinking global companies, including Marchex, Nokta, Future Media Architects, AOL, Yahoo, the National Hockey League, Major League Baseball, Lions Gate Films, Bank of America, Microsoft, Jupitermedia, Geosigns, Mainstream Advertising and many others. [The last named there, "Mainstream Advertising", is "owned" by the probable Looksmart "new owner", (in Network Solutions), of course!] If you notice on the last paragraph of this post the last sentence states: [The last named there, "Mainstream Advertising", is "owned" by the probable Looksmart "new owner", (in Network Solutions), of course!]

So Network Solutions now owned by General Atlantic owns LookSmart?I found this old newslink here: Companies to Offer Suite of Web Site-Building Tools Herndon, Va. - April 14, 1999 - Network Solutions, Inc., the world leader in Web address registration, and LookSmartSM, the Internet's largest directory of quality Web sites, today announced a strategic alliance to offer domain name registration services and Web site-enhancing tools to businesses. As part of the agreement, businesses will be able to access Network Solutions' domain name registration and other services, including its Affiliate Program, from LookSmart's Web services area. Network Solutions' customers will be able to download LookSmart's free suite of site-maker tools, including its industry-leading Web directory, from a co-branded Web site accessible from Network Solutions' dot com toolkitTM resource center. An advertising and direct marketing campaign will be launched to raise awareness about the companies' one-stop shopping capabilities. "LookSmart is a young, aggressive company that is very well known by key industry players" said Doug Wolford, Network Solutions' senior vice president, marketing and sales. "Its partnerships with leading Internet sites will help extend Network Solutions' services beyond our current reach." "Network Solutions is a premier brand among Web masters and we're excited to work with them to distribute our site-building products," said Evan Thornley, co-founder and CEO of LookSmart. "This agreement gives us unparalleled access to Web site owners and tremendous opportunities to distribute our directory to this audience." Network Solutions provides online domain name registration in five easy steps. In addition to registration services, Network Solutions also offer the dot com mailTM personal, portable email service and the dot com biz cardTM service, designed to provide personalized business solutions that enhance online identity. These services are also available through Network Solutions' Affiliate Program. The agreement is part of LookSmart's unique distribution strategy that focuses on displaying its Web directory on the screens of as many users as possible through syndication and licensing agreements with other Web sites and properties, partnerships with ISPs and viral marketing. In addition to its directory, LookSmart currently provides free Web services including hit counters, chat rooms and message boards, to thousands of Webmasters. The company currently distributes its directory of more than 1,000,000 Web site listings to top Web properties including MSN, Netscape, HotBot, @Home, AltaVista and

And then PORT responded in another email:


That's definitely a find. Much more now makes sense and it points to a very large operation in the background getting ready to spring.Here's some background on Looksmart:IBM got out of the laptop business and sold to Lenovo May 1, 2005 with funding to Lenovo from General Atlantic, Texas Pacific Group, Newbridge Capital Group.General Atlantic bought Network Solutions February 6, 2007netowrk Solutions owns Vortal Interactive.Vortal Interactive took over Looksmart.(A "vortal" is a "vertical portal")


post Sep 2007 by texas4qldStrange things happening at LooksmartI suspect that Looksmart are joing forces or being taken over by "vortal interactive" who is owned by "network solutions" who was recently bought by "General Atlantic" for $800 million.


Sep 20, 2007The LOOK-Network Solutions Vortal will show all just who is , "The Daddy" .....


10/30/07MySpace Invades LookSmart's Space (excerpts)MySpace will take residence in the "LookSmart Building" according to;"Los Angeles-based MySpace made a triumphant entrance into San Francisco last week at the Web 2.0 conference, throwing a bash at SFMOMA and announcing that it was opening an office in the city with about 200 employees.While the company did not disclose the location of its new offices, it has signed a letter of intent to take about 35,000 square feet at 625 Second St., according to sources. MySpace, part of Fox Interactive, ...... ."This is an interesting development. LookSmart leased the building in 1999 for all 130,000 + square feet of space for a ten year term....How can the full building accommodate the MySpace mob?'s possible too the primary occupant, LookSmart may be readying an exit themselves.Evidence exists to suggest they are in a deal of some sort with General Atlantic Partner property Network Solutions. NetSol property houses the 180 vertical sites using different URLs but the content appears to be the original LookSmart material.Network Solutions also leases the LookSmart AdCenter. is the product and they have attached it to their evolving network of sites that include domain reseller and many others.Combine the information above with the fact CEO Hills, CTO Grubb and CFO Simonelli (already passed his announced departure date) have all quit and a picture of the future of LookSmart is wrote about the MySpace move to San Francisco Oct. 15 and did not mention the address though they knew the exact neighborhood.Is LookSmart that far under the radar of everyone but a few shareholders?If something is afoot I credit the LookSmart employees for maintaining the code of silence.Absolutely nothing official or otherwise is coming from LookSmart lately that can shed light on what's really happening inside the big brick building.Shareholders must resign themselves to guessing.


(Gee. I guess we're not alone in guessing, right? heh heh heh)


More about General Atlantic, Network Solutions, Vortal and Looksmart:

October 1, 2007And the package is about Looksmart's Chairman Ted West in his temporary role, as Interim CEO & President.I am Chairman and CEO of Network Solutions, a leading provider of online products and services for small businesses. I oversee all facets of the company with the support of a very smart and talented management team.General Atlantic wants to see us continue to grow our business...

Sunday, October 21, 2007

The Complexities of Obfuscation

By: ghost_of_portuno
21 Oct 2007, 07:20 AM EDT
Msg. 200742 of 200747
Jump to msg. #
Dear Rheemer,

I know you are upset about how things turned out, but, you really do have to come to terms with the situation. You can't denegrate people and their concepts of value for months and months and then decide it's time to play nice within a few days. Flaring your temper when others don't immediately accept your unilateral declaration of peace and happiness fails to appreciate the level of hurt you applied to people and their intellects since you began posting about VCSY.

People don't turn as quickly as you will want. Not that fast. It will take a period of time for a testing of the sentiments you claim anew. For all the longs know, your attempt (along with kantuc) is nothing more than an effort to throw water on the fire that burst forth when you deleted the first 200328 and replaced it with the current 200328.

Claiming a VCSY long made up that post (others have the copies from the original web pages thanks to the magic of email and only a complete fool would fabricate something like that) served to threw gasoline on the fire you should have wanted so badly to quench. (right: rheemer, kantuc and tepe) There is no quenching something when you get caught trying to cover one mistake... especially if the new action is similar to the first.

Such proclamation of innocence by condemnation of others is a character flaw that does not serve the condemner well when condemned. You know; claiming to want a kinder, gentler posting regime on the Raging Bull board only to turn around after your one post offering a truce is laughed at out of hand shows a lack of appreciation for the level of rancor you foster lo these many months while going out of your way to slam those who sought to converse about VCSY value.

So, you're going to have to practice long-suffering and humility before anyone will be able to forget seeing those two copies of 200328 seared into their brain. Do you know why I use the word "seared"? Because longs have suspected you and Mirror had some way of making your booboos disappear for a long long time. We've all seen situations happen throughout the past, but only with posts going away over time. This is the first one caught disappearing and reappearing transformed within one posting number. This one was so fast! And the replacement popped right up straight away after the first was deleted.

We know it was your flustered response to a signal by DC. He ridicules the idea, but, when you read his post, the only sensible line in the post out of all the nonsense he offered indicated Microsoft and IBM would be paying for VCSY IP.

You subsequently followed a diverjes' question with a stern blast that "nothing happened". But, you apparently had second thoughts about claiming nothing happened when DC clearly sent you a signal... and you knew you would have to take DC's signal and pass it along to your other operatives... and leaving "nothing happened" would throw your entire crew into confusion as they would be depending on you to interpret DC's signal.

So you deleted that first 200328 "nothing happened" and you wrote to still about not knowing what the question was. And you changed from a "hold" to a "buy" to underline and pass along the shift in situation indicated by DC's signal.

Such a strange thing is a mistake made in haste and high emotion; the error sketches out our inner conflicts in stark relief not soon erased from the graffiti stained walls of our subway minds. Perhaps we could all "buy" your contrition if it would hold up for more than just a couple posts instead of collapsing into a heap of bitterness as a response to the inevitable coarse comment about your actions.

Now, here's the deal. There IS a way to get every long to simply forget about what happened and let it all go, but it's an extremely hard thing for somebody in your position to do. Confess and apologize. Confess you've been working for months to try to hammer the conversation about VCSY in order to convince readers they shouldn't consider VCSY stock worthwhile. Then apologize to longs for claiming they faked a post which you clearly made.

That way we could all be one big happy family and celebrate the value of VCSY in the days, weeks and months to come, rather than having you slam and hammer everyone who writes positive words about VCSY and in kind have longs remind you and the world just what our complaint with you has been.
That way kantuc could loosen up again and be his old self (he's become far too somber and conciliatory calling for a change in the rancor and animosity) and he could laugh again instead of quiver and quake.

Until you do come to terms with what you did, and until you do so with some form of apology about all the efforts you've made in the past to damage the VCSY conversation, I don't think anyone is going to be in the mood to let one cross word from you or any of your associated like-thinkers go without scrutiny and criticism.

It's a cold cruel world we live in, Brother Rheemer, where people consider money more dear than life. And when people discover someone being deceitful where their money is concerned, one is sure to end up with harsh condemnation and retribution. Would that it would be not so, dear Rheemer, but it do be. Do be do be do.
And until such time as the lion lays down with the lamb in yon blessed Millenia, this poor old world of human nature is going to hold those who do wrong to a high standard of cleanliness.

So, if you want to continue posting on the RB VCSY board, I would suggest (just a suggestion, mind you - you're free to carry on as you desire) you make amends with the entire group of longs and the past history of abuses directed against them by confronting your lapse in honesty (maybe the day wasn't all that long that October 17th day), coming clean with your past and break open a bottle of "now that that's over" and we can all drink to the coming days of good fortune and success for VCSY and the VCSY stock. Otherwise, every time you post, you'll be having to do so under a barrage of criticism and complaint as you continue the hypocrisy of claiming to not have written "nothing happened" in the first 200328.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Orgplus links up with Northern Health's Now Solutions emPath System

It's all out there - You'll have to use the Google to find the URLs. It will build character.

Northern Health Uses OrgPlus® to Ensure Post-Merger HR Data Accuracy and Structural Efficiency (Thanks for digging this up- Jes!)

Northern Health delivers healthcare to more than 300,000 people in a half million square mile area in northern British Columbia, Canada. The organization is made up of more than two dozen acute care facilities, 14 long term care facilities, public health units and offices providing specialized services. Northern Health physicians performed more than 24,000 surgeries, welcomed 3,000 babies and treated nearly 255,000 emergency patients in the 2004-2005 operating year.

Northern Health was formed by merging together 40 independent healthcare facilities to provide these locations with central governance, planning and communication. The desired structure also allowed individual facilities to maintain local operating and decision-making autonomy. As a newly-formed public healthcare organization with more than 7,000 employees and an annual budget of $521 million, it had to ensure effective management of its converged workforce by instituting an efficient organizational structure.

The management of Northern Health understood that an intelligent organizational charting system would serve the company as a platform for workforce and structural planning. Key decision-makers from across the organization collaborated on a list of functional requirements for a solution. After a lengthy comparison of OrgPlus to other products, Northern Health selected OrgPlus based on overall look and feel of the user interface, the clean-looking charts for presentations and its competitive price. OrgPlus also outperformed competitive offerings in security, conditional formatting, integration with Microsoft Office and exporting capabilities to PowerPoint and Adobe Acrobat.

OrgPlus' dynamic organizational charts mapped the entire hierarchy of 7,000 employees for communicating the new structure, geographical locations and reporting relationships. The new chart allowed management to view the organization as a whole, as well as by its separate business units and allocated resources. Problems with the hierarchy were easily pin-pointed and corrected in order to reflect accurate reporting relationships and budgeting needs.

As soon as OrgPlus was linked to Northern Health's Now Solutions emPath HR system, problems with the accuracy of their HR data were immediately identified. The HR department and approximately 300 department managers at various geographic locations were given secure access to edit charts, validate data and correct inaccuracies. With OrgPlus, the organizational structure now keeps pace with change. Changes are automated, eliminating the need for constant maintenance and correction by management. Problems with data or structure are easily identified and corrected in minutes in the emPath HR system.

Beyond improved data and structural accuracy, the intelligent organization charts dramatically improved communication across the organization. OrgPlus functions as a self-service directory where employees get answers quickly about reporting relationships, employee locations and contact information. Detailed profiles of each employee provide e-mails, phone numbers and addresses. The directory is linked to Microsoft Outlook allowing employees to locate the proper person to contact and e-mail them with a single click.

With the successful roll-out of OrgPlus completed, Northern Health?s human resource department is beginning to pull HR metrics from emPath into OrgPlus and is planning to perform workforce modeling, salary-rollups and other key metrics to prepare for future changes.

With OrgPlus, Northern Health has achieved effective central governance, planning and communication of its new organizational structure. Additionally within OrgPlus, it has a platform for workforce planning to help management make informed business decisions and plan change with confidence.

About HumanConcepts
HumanConcepts is the leading provider of workforce modelling and intelligence solutions. With its OrgPlus technology charting millions of employees for organizations worldwide, including 400 of the Fortune 500, HumanConcepts has defined best practices in organizational charting. OrgPlus integrates with HR systems to automatically create, update and distribute organizational charts for team collaboration, workforce planning and critical decision-making. OrgPlus integrates seamlessly with Microsoft Office applications.

HumanConcepts is based in California with offices in the United Kingdom and Germany and offers OrgPlus software and services worldwide. For more information visit

Sunday, September 9, 2007

A layman's View of VCSY part 3 - arbitrary

A Layman's View of VCSY part 3

“Arbitrary”: Latin arbitrarius = judged between

*****Section 1*****

If an operating system may be virtualized and if an application can be virtualized and if a body of data can be virtualized, can a body of programming code be virtualized?

Of course. A chunk of code is a set of instructions by which the computer carries out the desired tasks. Sometimes the code is a monolithic body as in a single-file application. Sometimes the code is a collection of bodies as in library objects. Sometimes the monolithic code provides hooks to access modular procedural segments in the file. Sometimes a developer can build a hook by finding a particular direct index into the file memory. There is always a way.

Either way, virtualization opens up the ability to treat data bodies and their uses in an “arbitrary” fashion.

Now, that does not mean capricious or willy-nilly. Arbitrary means we can use something without having to argue or worry about whether the act of using requires any necessary concern for details. Arbitrary is the basis for “agnostic”.

Patent 6826744 aka 744 provides a novel concept for application building by allowing ANY code of ANY language for ANY machine to be fitted and used with ANY other code of all other arbitrary qualities for ANY purpose including retroconstruction (what? The system can have children.).

So, whereas virtualization fits data to be used universally, arbitration fits data to be used without concern for use. Agnostic fits data for universal arbitration.

Most programmers are aware of the prior art in “wrapping” a code object in a virtualization layer (usually using XML but may also be done by proprietary means) which allows that object to be used with other objects not normally fitted to co-mingle.

744 takes this several steps beyond by outfitting and treating all aspects of all data in such a way. This is done in 744 by compartmentalizing the data into three classes relative to application building and use: content – format – functionality.

Content and format management are well known concepts from the dotcom era. But, as with Microsoft's segmentation of Silverlight/Expression for designers and Visual Studio .Net for developers, the dotcom era products typically had gaps in integration that made building unified applications difficult and often impossible.

Arbitration removes the gaps between various data uses to bring Content – Format – Functionality under one shop roof allowing the designer to also be the developer (to also be the manager to also be the maintainer to also be the governor) without having to be concerned with how the design or development is actually carried out in code.

Although this sounds like magic, virtualization wrapping demonstrates this sort of idea clearly, although no other applications before SiteFlash (the deriving product body of 744) provided a means or an envelope in which to handle virtual forms of content, format and functionality as one application package... or else the patent examiner would have been able to find an example easily.

There are many who say that's not true but we've yet to be pointed to an example, so, until such time, we are in the position of the patent examiner who approved 744 who also saw no prior art to block the 744 grant.

What does this mean to software development?

Arbitration frees the designer/developer from having to know much at all (if any) about the underlying code that is doing the work. A virtual layer abstracts the mechanical workings of “code” into a useful semantic construct that may be used like a modular component.

Some of this capability can be found in newly created projects like MSFT Popfly, for instance. The idea being various functionalities can be packaged as 'snap-on' components so the program can be built without any programming.

SiteFlash embodies this idea comprehensively by delivering an “ecology” in which all data/code representing each of the three assembly categories may be intercombined to result in applications built from any resource.

The three areas: content (the information to be presented or processed) format (look and feel – interaction functionality) and functionality (program capabilities) are handled and managed in such a way as to abstract the entire process away from handling code programming tasks in order to elevate the usefulness of virtualization to the end user and away from the programmer.

*****Section 2*****

Remember the sister patent 521? Remember how the “guts” or the kernel of the 521 process is a virtual computer built out of markup language able to process and produce markup language? Such markup language construction is able to build an abstracted construct around any data encountered whether content data (your name here) format data (your presentation here) or functionality data (your workflow here) so each compartment may contain all (any) content, all (any) format, and all (any) functionality from any resource (reachable via internet) to achieve all (any) computing purpose.

Each compartment is managed separately while each compartment element combined with other elements (of same compartment or different compartments) are likewise managed and arbitrated into an abstracted construction, transparent to the user and kept as a construct by the ecology.

How is that possible? There are a finite number of resources in any number of computers interconnected with each other. There are thus a finite number of possible configurations any application may be required to take. Within the body of a “program” there will be a finite number of possible components to affect a finite number of operational actions or functionalities.

A finite state machine (a deterministically transacting machine) is able to compute all possible combinations for all possible states and deliver the required combination to the particular use requirement at specific states.

All this is made possible because the inner workings of 744's virtual machine and abstracting language are based on markup extensibility just as 521 virtual machine and native programming language is made up of markup extensibility. AND such extensibility is dynamic as the markup is a script and may be compiled for ultimate package use at the client but may live forever in the ecology as a malleable script... which may be repurposed as desired for multiple uses... given the component nature of the compartmentalized content/format/functionality.

These kinds of statements make programmers angry because they are the attainable goals everone has said is an intuitively reachable goal, but McAuley and Davison are the first to build solid and demonstrable constructs to achieve these lofty “intuitions” wished for by IT heads. I don't think the patent office patents intuitions and wishes. I do know they patent solid and demonstrable first art constructions.

That's why VCSY owns these two lawfully granted patents. That is why programmers everywhere are likely angry at VCSY. Possible angry enough to say some very stupid, libelous and tragic things.

I realize it sounds like magic just as Forth programming sounded like magic to traditional language programmers in the 70's and 80's. Because FORTH used a tiny virtual machine as the interpreter for all FORTH primitives built into vocabulary words, the programmer could fashion the application to do whatever he liked by defining words (objects) in a vocabulary (library) into compilers and interpreters which were thus used to construct the program. Then, the program is assembled by placing the words from each vocabulary in an appropriate sequenced position in a newly defined word. This word (procedure) was likewise placed in the vocabulary (library) allowing the developer to now use an abstracted form of the workflow he was attempting to achieve. Thus, Forth could evolve to become human language syntax which was the basis for further programming construction.

SiteFlash is a cousin to such a concept but distinctly different in execution.

The traditional procedure-assembly of objects that ultimately provide extensibility is the foundation for all current and prior IDE's and is what confuses 744 readers who quickly forget what the patent is saying and begin crying foul for something so “obvious” and “overly broad”. They are wrong because of the nature of 744 and 521 construction which render the very fabric of these patents extensible BY NATURE: At the core, as it were. NATIVELY extensible so the kernel can become anything at any time for any use.

So, “obvious” and “too broad”? Not so. The elementally extensible virtual machine concept (instead of a procedural compiler assembling object blocks as in procedural languages like C) allows the programming base elements to take on ANY form, thus, the VM may change to accommodate the code, allowing to abstract code chunks without changing or even touching the code.

Traditional programming languages force the programming environment to adhere to a carefully structured syntax and form with the objects providing some measure of abstracting capability.

Extensible programming languages and ecologies allow the programming environment to morph dynamically (real time) to accommodate the changing needs of the code user without ever having to change the base code.

Thus, write once, use many becomes write once use ANY.

Some will think it's a matter of semantics, and it is. Semantics describe architecture and operational structure which are what ultimately determine real capability and reach. The word to hack between the traditional method and the 744/521 method is “extensibility” - the same “eXtensible” found as the base abstract in XML.

So, the bottom line is; any “virtual machine” dependent on an object oriented/library based code pool (like JAVA) will offer only a limited abstracting facility because the “virtual machine” employed is not itself extensible. It is what it is and the main office will have to bring their developers to bear on the kernel to build in further “extensions” when they get around to it or when the corporate office figures they've pissed off enough customers.

With a markup language based kernel, the kernel may morph at any time to whatever extension necessary, then become whatever other entity required next.

Cool, huh? That same capability can be found in the 521 patent which now explains how 521 can virtualize and abstract in a very granular way while 744 virtualizes and abstracts in a platform wide way.

This adaptability of the virtual machine to the virtual use results in very small code bases that serve very large programming frameworks.

Such capability finds a greater kinship with simulation/emulation than “programming”. Thus, 744 SiteFlash and all derivatives may simulate or emulate any abstraction of any code (it may even become a particular computer architecture as needed – thus virtualizing and abstracting even computer hardware into an emulation of any hardware process) at any level or scope just as the 521 patent may emulate/simulate any data virtualizations/abstractions at any level or scope including at the machine code.

This pseudo “overlap” in 744 and 521 provide a seamless and bumpless capability for an “application” to integrate as an operating system + application + any resources needed... into a single package that may be shipped to the client and run.

And that brings us to 744's strength: massive affiliation.

Because 744 can integrate ANY abstraction, the user may employ various standards of specification, construction, management, maintenance, governance at any targeted point in the entire framework.

This capability is echoed in 521 so scaling is extensibly flexible according to the information theory speaking to granular construction of abstracted components to abstracted applications. 744 covers component assembly of abstracted capabilities of abstracted applications to abstracted frameworks and ecologies.

Reversely, the extensible nature also allows 521 to create applications that create operational components. 744 allows ecologies that create operational cultures.

And then you can take those and fold them into another evolution of components and cultures ad infinitum.

So, Siteflash can accomplish all this by itself using markup and code libraries. But, adding 521 allows 744 to fly. So 744 by itself? OK. 744/521? Unbeatable.

Then, there is the ability to massively affiliate this “program” to all users anywhere on any machine with any requirements. The program continues to be a part of the ecology for its entire life-cycle (as long as an internet connection is available or cache is long-lasting and comprehensive enough which may be seconds, minutes, days, weeks, months, years... etcetera etcetera etcetera) and is able to track its processes by virtue of the granular governance and audit capabilities in elements built out of 521.

How? The package arrives with all necessary requirements (which have been extracted from the metadata passed between server and client machines) that allow all possible conflicts in construction and use to be resolved dynamically in the SiteFlash base before the package arrives. Once there, the package has been abstracted for that particular use case (requirement/design/construct is an abstracted workflow in SiteFlash so it self-assembles from object in the library to application body) and is fitted for THAT specific use.

Because SiteFlash is an ecology covering ALL aspects (which may be added to or taken from the libraries at any time) of the software use, the delivery tailored for each computer allows large communities of computer users to engage in community collaboration with the level of their local client being factored into the use.

THAT is where computers should be right now. But, they are sadly not, except in some areas which appear to be using SiteFlash capabilities apparently under some sort of use permission by the inventor and VCSY.

This embodiment of arbitrary use frees the machine's ability to virtualize data for human use and to allow machines to take over a larger part of the build process.

Onward and upward.

And just a word about “obvious” and “too broad”. These are not words subject to the wishful fantasies of people so entangled in the life and death struggle for paradigm relevance they know only their part of the river and parts downstream. The effort from C. Babbage through A. Turing and through C. Moore has been a greater sophistication toward simple elegance in processing numbers and ultimately human words and abstractions. That is the goal even though others want to hold their monopolies on productivity and advanced thought.

A programmer today is not intellectually fitted to explore parts of the river upstream because his knowledge base requires he either acquire new knowledge or invent new knowledge. The first is far easier than the second if the programmer can swim against the current. The first is just as remotely possible as the second if the programmer will only kick and scream at the shoreline. The first is more impossible than the second if the programmer floats on his back and blows bubbles.

Such is the nature of abstraction that the closer we get to machine intelligence the more stupid our workers will become. We only see hints of it now. We will one day wonder how we didn't all drown in our own goo in our sleep.

Saturday, September 8, 2007

A Layman's View of VCSY part 2 - virtual

I realize these will not qualify as "Layman" explanations as a certain amount of information processing theory must be available to cover the ground.

I will attempt to further simplify although questions can provide a catalyst for reducing complexity and confusion.

Layman's view of VCSY part 2

In order to explain why MSFT is blocked by VCSY patents, I will have to explain what needs to happen (Section 1) and how that happens (Section 2) with VCSY's patent 7076521 aka 521.

I will attempt to provide a “Short Story” version, but, for now, this is the long version.

*****Section 1.*****

To decipher why VCSY patents and patent derived products trump the capabilities of other technologies, we need to examine two key words: Virtual and Arbitrary

“Virtual”? Virtual means “not actual”. “Actual” means the real data being contained in an application or available for direct processing by the application. Essentially “Virtual” means a faithful representation of the actual format. Further from there, virtual means a faithful execution of an actual process in another processing form.

Virtualization is a large buzzword currently come into IT vogue given the public exposure over a coming “battle” between VMWare and Microsoft Viridian and other virtualization products. Virtualization will revolutionize the use of operating systems and applications and bring enhanced value and productivity from new and legacy systems.

A fundamental tenet of virtualization teaches that anything “soft” (as in soft-ware) can be represented as something else soft without changing the fundamental operating qualities. Data is hard reality handled in a soft form without changing the essential “being”.

Data can only be consumed if it is presented in a useful form.

Data may be “native” to a system, meaning the data is readily understood and processed because the application is built to use the data in the presented form.

Or, data may be “foreign” to a system, meaning the data must be processed first into a useful format (form) before the system can then treat that data as though it were native.

An analogy can be seen in the difference between Metric and English measurement. Both are “values” and therefore are “data”.

Both measurement systems are readily understandable to humans. But, unless a means of transforming one value into another via reference table or some means readily, one data format will likely be considered native and useful to the consuming human culture and the other data format will be foreign and unusable.

A system processing native data may produce and consume that data in any way desired by design. There are no boundaries to that processing other than the creative limits of the builders. However, ingesting one small piece of foreign data misapplied will stop the system cold no matter how brilliant the system designers unless they have built into the system a way to handle the unexpected or foreign.

Designing for all possible screw-ups or surprises is what builds cost into a system. Simple is cheap.

Thus, a cheap, simple system processing native data will do well as long as the foreign requirement is never faced. It is not a matter of resources. It is a matter of presentation. Even the most expensive and complex system will become dumb as a fence-post with foreign data.

So, Is the solution X: To learn all possible forms of expression? Or is the solution Y: To provide one universal form of expressing all possible forms? Decades of computing design demonstrates option X is expensive and difficult while option Y is inexpensive and easy.

So, the data between different systems should be standardized into a single universal form so that all applications may apprehend and consume that data without having to modify the established methods built into the proprietary system.

That's a tall order since all cultures consider their proprietary standards to be superior to other cultures.

Fortunately, in the data world, there is a standard that allows this universal presentation and that standard is called XML (for eXtensible Markup Language). Remember this: All XML does as a “programming language” is to represent data as structure and value. Fortunately, as with all elegant solutions, that is all that needs to be done to achieve a basis to achieve computing virtualization.

But, you will find, it is not the expression that virtualizes but the processing available to arrive at that expression that does the virtualization.

If proprietary application A and proprietary application B send each other copies of their respective native data presentations, chances are they won't be able to work with either as any small portion showing up as a foreign article will cause confusion and error or downright failure. Unless the builders built or modify the applications to work with each other using a same data format, interoperation is not possible.

However, if app A and app B can simply transform each of their native forms into XML and back again to native, the XML that meets in the middle will represent a universally understood form any other application with a standard XML capability may process. Thus, instead of having to modify an application to work in a new system, the application may join the system as is and the availed XML allows that application to work with any other application in the universe of “interoperating” apps.

The data in each application can be said to have been “virtualized” or changed from actual to virtual because the XML representation of the data is a transformed instance of the value in a proprietary format and structure. Unless the processing consumes XML directly (something we will cover in examining “arbitrary”), the native form of the data is the actual or real form being processed by the applications. The virtual form of the data is what is being pooled for the entire system to use for communication (again, and/or depending on if applications can process XML directly – we will cover in “arbitrary”).

So, to achieve at least the first level of virtualization, we go from native A to XML to native B. We can, of course, then go from native B to XML to native A. We thus have “electronic data exchange” which is the simplest form of virtualization and a mainstay of XML “programming” in IT systems for the past decade+.

Virtualization as a simple core capability is thus the ability to universally represent the native form of any data in an application.

The XML standard is designed to allow all builders to virtualize data for use by any other builder.


XML does not have to be used to virtualize. “Virtualization” per se only requires a standard agreed upon by consenting builders. A builder may use his own standard or a standard agreed upon by other partner companies. This is often done by partnering builders to exclude competitors; a key of sorts letting folks who know the standard to enter the clubhouse and keep others without a key out.

So, even if XML is used, companies can develop various proprietary ways to process the transformation to and from the XML presentation, thus allowing only those applications adhering to the builder's proprietary XML standard to join in processing that data.

This is the case with the Microsoft version of XML for Office application document files called OOXML. Microsoft's variations in the base XML standard is the source of conflict in the international standards community where the ODF standard presents XML that may be processed by ALL applications, whereas the MSFT version of XML has been crafted to exclude non-MSFT application uses.

So, virtualization may be applied in a number of different ways for different purposes.

For example, VMWare uses proprietary methods to virtualize the targeted operating system/application relationship so the OS/application combinations may be used on different operating systems. The virtualization method is proprietary so you can't simply plug your operating system into the VMWare system unless VMWare has crafted the system to handle your OS and apps.

Sun ZFS uses proprietary ways to virtualize the data in the operating system so outside non-Sun applications may communicate with the OS without having access to the proprietary OS command and data bodies. This is a more “granular” or lower level type of virtualization more akin to what VCSY can provide. Sun ZFS does what Microsoft WinFS was supposed to do before WinFS was killed. Sun has a read/write version allowing applications to pass information back and forth between the Sun OS and the application across the virtual path. Apple has a read-only version of ZFS allowing apps to get values from the OS but unable to pass data back to the OS.

Microsoft OOXML allows Microsoft and partner applications to process a virtual representation of the MSOffice document data while preventing non-partnered applications. This is called “lock-in” ensuring the users will have to buy MSFT/partner products to join in the processing interoperation.

If these companies were to convert their applications to present all their operations to the outside world in international standard XML, ALL other applications would have an opportunity to join the party. So, why don't they?

The most prevalent argument has it the vendor doesn't want to commoditize their products allowing them to be accessed and intermixed with other vendor's products. But that seems a lame argument when analyzed against the resulting customer value and the value added to each vendor's products (unless the virtualization uncovers intentional lock-in values built in by a vendor – THAT is the fear).

The next argument has been that virtualization is difficult and that is true if modifications to your current product line are required. THAT is a valid argument and a real problem and is a key reason for using 521.

521 does not require modification to the application.

Why? Here is the biggest kink; Being able to virtualize data is ONLY the first step in the process. The idea is to virtualize the computing process that produces and consumes the data.

Simply being able to export XML and import XML are large steps in application evolution but by no means the end of the road. Without a way of passing information about the data and the process (data called metadata or “data about data”) the applications are flying blind.

Various parts of any body of data being virtualized into XML will likely be used by the applications as values. Other parts to be consumed may be metadata. Still other parts of the body of data may be event triggers, commands and process state parameters to be used by the various applications to make sure all interoperating processes are carried out properly. These elements must all be available as a virtual product for the application interconnection to be conducted properly.

So, since an application must FIRST be able to express the application to the outside world as XML, we now find the biggest current obstacle: Routines to import XML and export XML are not always available and processing data are much less likely to be available.

Although Microsoft (not to pick on MSFT but they are a perfect example – the rest of the world is worse off) is a large company with much resources, only a portion of their products import or export or process XML. That means they must either modify those applications to import/export and internally process for XML or use an outside application the industry refers to broadly as “middleware”.

Legacy systems built before circa 2000 likely do nothing with XML and rely solely on the native data forms to operate. These must have middleware solutions appended to their operations to virtualize as modifying legacy systems are often difficult to impossible.

Modern systems also likely have little or no XML capabilities as the industry has battled with various methods of implementing solutions to the legacy problems (as their software becomes legacy to future XML installations the moment shipped). The least troublesome solution is typically to not provide the capability in the application body itself but to hold off for further development which is likely a middleware solution.

So, how does a middleware solution used with legacy and proprietary applications allow them to be virtualized?

Now we come to the reason for patent 521 and the reason companies like Microsoft and various others are unable to do much more than the simplest interoperating processes using their own technologies between like or dislike applications.

*****Section 2*****

How Doooo they Do it?

The title of 521 is a “Web-based collaborative data collection system”. This title is deceptively simple, as the action described by that title phrase alone allows a wide range of virtualization capabilities.

You may notice the patent describes all the various elements required to form a computer. Usually computers are build as processing assets on a hardware chip. But, 521 is a virtual computer also known as a virtual machine or VM [1].

The concept of a virtual machine is not unique. The architecture of this particular VM IS unique, however, and is key to the novel 521 capabilities. I will be explaining only the simplest operation as that may jog further thinking for other solutions.

The 521 virtual machine is designed to run on a web platform such as a browser, yet able to connect to data in a proprietary application (including an OS since that is an application albeit the underlying “base” or “platform” application between the applications and the bare hardware referred to as “bare metal”).

Because the 521 is typically used to augment and support programming workload on the client, the 521 product is called an “agent”. Actually, an agent is what can be built using 521 claims for 512 is actually the creative ecology for all derivative agent products and claims.

What that means is 521 is what you build 521 products (which are agents) out of.

We will do the simplest use of 521 here before we graduate to larger project capabilities and patented product derivatives which are potentially very many.

So, we have a “web-based” agent which may reside on the browser (or on the OS or on bare metal, but more about that later) which may retrieve proprietary data on the local machine, process that data and present that data as an XML representation.

The XML data may be transported by the agent via http to any other real or virtual computer for further process. It is the http protocol that makes the agent “web-based” and does not limit the agent to residing on the browser.

In our virtualization examples above, the other “target” computer would use a similar [or different – doesn't matter] agent to transform the produced XML into the proprietary data form and place that in the proprietary data store for that client application to work with.

At that point the client could be a anything from a mainframe or a micro-device.

That is essentially one of the simplest “bridge”s you can build and is a base concept that describes one of the 521 children; the “XML Enabler Agent”.

In this capacity, the 521 derived agent can act as an agent for a proprietary application to virtualize any size data body in the application datastore. That virtualization may be expressed as anything (not just XML) as various programming inputs on the MLE, so the proprietary IN, XML or anything OUT is a beginning of a universal virtualizer.


Sure. They can modify the various individual server-based applications they own to be able to express XML to the client and return received XML back to the proprietary expression on the main server or some other server (what SOAP does). This configuration would preserve their “server-centric” philosophy, but, they would then not be in a position to act as a replacement for the main server should the internet connection between the client and the main server be down. Such “off-line” processing while waiting for the on-line web connection to return, is a significant point of contention by SaaS critics.

Such on-line/off-line capability may only be served by a processing facility at the local client machine. This is what the agent does.

MSFT can provide executive agents of their own at the “end” of RSS pipes at the local client (this would leverage the inbred subscription/transaction activity in RSS) with XML routers to pass messages to various executive elements on the browser or client OS. The problem there is all processing of the proprietary data to XML must necessarily occur remote from the local client at the main server. Therefore, latency between the processed answer and the arrival at the client is exacerbated by no off-line processing capability.

This RSS method is a key component of Ray Ozzie's vision for providing MSFT's software+service distributed computing. While it works with a Remote Procedure Call architecture like SOAP, it does not qualify as “distributed computing” but, rather, distributed services.

The off-line processing vulnerability is the key obstacle inherent in the RSS method. The RSS method still needs a local agent to perform processes while the web is off-line (which renders the RSS silent until connection is resumed).

So, the above two example workarounds show the answer to “Could MSFT do it differently?” is a qualified 'yes, but'. The solution does not meet the requirements of true web application construction and does not accomplish virtualization at the client but requires virtualization at the main server – a method which has been the traditional means of providing web pages since the 1990's.

The main reason VCSY's 521 is superior to MSFT method is found in 521's ability to act anywhere in any configuration under any circumstances. “Proving” that is simply a matter of walking through thought experiments with various architectural configurations being exercised to watch the issues faced by designers. This can be done by 521 against any other vendor methods and 521 holds flexibility, scale, and power advantages throughout. I will gladly provide such thought experiments in greater detail.

I believe the virtualization and client-side server capacity are inherently desirable compared against the traditional RPC method.

The sister to “virtual” is “arbitrary”; a term not heard in current buzz because it has not been cataloged by any mainstream provider. Arbitrary is the keyword for the 744 patent which is the one MSFT is being sued for infringing in .Net.

I think you will see where in .Net such “arbitrary” capability might be needed and where it appears to be or have been.


[1] Virtual Machine aka VM is a data processing computer that is not actual or “real” but is built out of software and runs using internet protocol (in this discussion) to communicate with other computers whether actual or virtual. The 521 VM is a virtual micro-server able to perform data communications between internet systems using the http protocol. It is thus a web server that runs on the local actual machine. A VM like 521 may be called a “runtime” [3], but 521 calls the VM with accompanying processing resource streams an “agent”.

[2] The 521 VM is comprised of primitive elements that perform disk and other resource I/O operations. These elements may be assembled into a workable application accessing the proprietary resources and functions of the underlying platform (typically the OS running the browser) by invoking the primitives in a dynamic markup script. This is the “program” that builds the executive functions and workflow of the web-based application.

[3] The term “runtime” is a proprietary word denoting the operating executive kernel residing as the first and central element of a VM coupled with a programming language to access the resources connected to the kernel. Typical of such a description is Microsoft's Common Language Runtime, which is the means of actioning Windows, and the new Dynamic Language Runtime, which is designed to operate on the web and run a markup-based programming language.

[4] VCSY's “dynamic markup language” Emily (the executive kernel is the Markup Language Executive) was introduced by VCSY in 2000. Microsoft's dynamic markup language is still under wraps.

the real portuno