Sunday, April 29, 2007

Flying over the hedges.

My two cents thrown in with down-but-not-out's view. I know it's really long. Have you come to expect anything different from me?

By: down-but-not-out
29 Apr 2007, 11:39 AM EDT
Msg. 183775 of 183802
(This msg. is a reply to 183770 by wacalahan.)

wacalahan - your colors are showing. Dude - get a new line of work. You suck at this.
You write:

Why is VCSY a Penny Stock if the 46 reasons you list are valid?

Penny stocks are often a poor investment except for those who run them. Most are financed through stock sales and is the reason they have so many shares outstanding. I hope VCSY is successful in their case against MSFT, but you must admit it will take years for a final settlement to take place. The huge amount of litigation in our court system presents another problem facing your case. Example: The tobacco industry litigation. Judgments are still being overturned by higher courts. The legal industry, and it is a profit making bizarre industry, is more often unfair than fair.
W A Calahan

Since you made reference to " your case" as opposed to "our case" kinda tells me you are not a share holder. Anyway, pls do not worry about MY CASE - It can take as long as necessary. I'm in no hurry. Been here for about 6 years - more that I can say for you and your basher friends.



Hello, it's me pd.

Some people couldn't ride a tricycle nailed to the living room floor. Takes a reeeaaalll long time to learn to ride a tricycle. We been at it seven years. Heck, I coulda had three kids and an itch what gets me thrown off that ride by now. But, instead, I channeled that productive energy into learning what the thing under me was, what it was about, what it didn't like and what it likes and why it would want to buck me off. Took me a looooonnng time.

Why hasn't Microsoft given us the kind of things XML theory informs? Were they not informed of that? Did they decide they had so many com/dcom developers out their they can't afford to alienate them? XAML was rolled out to designers and the developers raised such a clatter that MSFT had to give them some of the tools.

Now, THERE's an interesting conundrum... Microsoft is easily able to roll out tools for a content management application but they forget and completely failed to project any need at all for developers to have these kinds of tools. You know? They know how to manage the content and format... but they haven't ever thought of combining content/format/function in one package. They believe there's a difference in 'look and feel' automation and really do something' automation by keeping the content/formaat discussion in the hands of designers and keep the 'Make it do something.' realm amongst the developers. So they keep the function out by itself in .Net Framework and let the client (the one they hold harmless and stupid I guess) integrate content/format/function envronments of their own and violate the first obstacle when facing that patent. And Microsoft? How could they have known???!!! ... 'Well, by cracky, ain't never thought about putting the two together. How the hell would you do that anyway? Would that cost a lot?'

Mmmm. Muckmuck say got dcom make dcom. Heat cave burn picture leaf. Pile picture leaf big pile put fire. Big fire. Fast. Make heat. Make light. Make smoke. Live outside get picture leaf make fire more. Cold. Warm cave. Smoke live cave. Muckmuck live outside. Keep cave warm. Think not right. Think maybe burn picture leaf outside. Open. Free. Smoke go up. No stink. No picture leaf. Burn. Burn smoke.

bbvvvvvvvvvvtttt blink blink Don't let these guys near the toaster with a fork and give the other one an aluminum hat.


You know what? I wish I could hook up my notepad to a web-based spell-checker service and thesaurus exeterra. If I could get just an interface between notepad and that URL. Why is that so hard? You know, just paste that URL on a notepad page and from there there push a button and bango wangy you got yourself a neat reference library working your notepad content in a customizable way. Intellectual property problems? No $#!@?

How come Microsoft doesn't have anything like that now? Still riding the tricycle? Still pedaling the little com/dcom legs? Java? Yeah. HA. Go Java. Java had big footing in Ross Systems beginning in the 90's. If Java were the thing we would be done with the 'What can you do with virtualization?' conversation and been moved on to commoditized software but, as it is, you still have to write the stuff in Java. In fact, as Java was intended to be a distributed smartcard language before the browser came along and saved its poorly extended buttocks, it's had twelve years to propagate and distribute and most realistic people would agree JAVA has its place but it's not going to blaze any new trails.

Duhhhh.... The programmers are wondering 'like, What else would you program it in?'. THAT is the problem señor y señoritas. Stay tuned and you'll learn about cerdo y habas.

How about your own industry's business or operational or marketing kanguage, for a start? Write it out and the machine compiles the code for the execution or keeps it as VHLL script and assembles the workings by a governed workflow to build the systems own modeled selection process. You never even have to say the word 'code' again unless you're a spy.

I mean, we must assume Microsoft is able to do all these things. They simpply choose not to market their goods. That is their right, you know, but it certainly i sbaffling.

Maybe we'll start seeing some things in Mix07. Maybe not. Who knows.

It's really never been that hard. That's what is going to really PO the entire developer base when they see what it takes and what can be done. Talk about feeling they've been ripped off. Hailstone fell out of the sky and ended up as recycled paper on Joe Nobody's lawn as scrapps of once proud pages from a XML tutorial.

Nothing but sound and fury and only now coming out of the dark with timid, tentative steps. Where are the fruits of their R&D budgets and why can they not coalesce?

The last ecstasy of the dotcom boom was driven by the relative ability of the average guy to be able to understand XML concepts (having learned HTML concepts, XML was a logical next step) and the concepts radiating from the theory.

What many critics of the VCSY patents are those who say the architecture informed by XML is so obvious. Yes, that's kind of right. It's obvious after you actually see one delineated, but before that happens, it's all good vibs and wooden 'it be nice'.

It's the 'why didn't I think of that?' feeling we all get when we see how a magic trick is done... or when we look at a paper clip. If those things can not be patented, we have no hope of acting in a world populated by giants who replace cash for the patent protection you need so desperately as a poor guy with an idea.

If we're to get rid of patent protection in software then the corporations who make money with it should pay the creators severally throughout the life of the software activity or not make money off the software.

Where do we go, where do we go?

Yes, just like the HTML/browser combination spurred young people to embrace a geek realm, XML and the virtural operating ecology in the embodyment of the combined SiteFlash ecology and the XML Agent cell structure will provide a malleable building environment for the average guy. Just as the Microsoft Visual paradigm brought better cohesion among creative goals, the Virtual paradigm embodied in VCSY patents extends that cohesion to all aspects of software creation and applicability in all verticals and horizontal uses.

The three product bases complement each other in that 1. SiteFlash patent methods is the construction environment for integration of content/form/function contained in any legacy applications and any object libraries and the 2. collaborative data-collector patent methods under 3. Emily modeling methods result in web-based applications capable of abstracting all the application building necessarily done on proprietary platforms and GUI regimes, onto an internet representation which is available on any machine regardless its operating base.

That MSFT XAML is a set of tools intended for expression (a content/format regime which provides dynamically interactive information in a life-cycle manageable construct for the purposes of producing dynamic web pages with delineated) indicates to me Microsoft is well aware the oundary line drawn by SiteFlash.

There are other borders crossed and much innocently because they watched the source and imitated.

AJAX aka XMLhttpRequest has extended the look and feel context to provide a faster update to dynamic information without having to cycle the page javascript to 'refresh the page'. Thus AJAX implementations (watch a Yahoo finance sheet and see it's updating quickly - much faster than if you were to update the page - subtle but important for look and feel automation to provide a 'desktop' feel to the page.) improve the look and feel formatting paradigm.

But it has to be extended much further to become and application component of consequence. More than 'poke the poodle' or any of the countless flash and flex automations on pages. 'Automation to do what? Make graphics move or make machines run?' THAT is the 'functionality' in the third compartment that has first been combined with content/format development/management. SiteFlash is unique and novel in incorporating content/format/function in what I like to call what's known/look and feel/user applicability. User applicability by internet is the new paradigm and the remaining claims demonstrate SiteFlash as a webpage based computer with all requirements to become anything using anything... arbitrary.

The theoretical result of thought exercises done using both patents and a whitepaper available in 2000 on EmilySolutions Markup Language Executive (MLE aka Emily) demonstrate an impressive range of enablements for the whole range of information... indicated by the enablement and deployment/management

We see from an IBM search April 30, 2007 is a significant day on IBM's calendar as they tell us they are performign a significant retooling of sorts. This retirement of AS/400 mainframe support on so many levels defies what IBM has previously boasted in the enablement of a rejuvenation process for legacy mainframes and there are a boatload (maybe many boatloads) of IBM AS/400 mainframes out there needing a nurse.

Of course, I should rightly expect IBM to announce what will take the place of this services thing by IBM but I haven't really had a chance to dig through to understand the basic feel of the information. Just surprised at the scope and subject matter software being retired. Weird. You know. Odd.

In VCSY theory, the MLE micro-server/Very High Level Language pairing will provide an evolutionary framework to abstract what Microsoft developers do now into the hands of admins and subject matter experts so they may build their own solutions for further extension into their vertical industries and associations... instead of relying on a generation of worker bees subservient to the limitations of their technologies and thus serfs to a greater purpose... that of keeping current MSFT structure intact and headed management's way in spite of the cross-industry leadings directions.

XML virtualization and application is actually rather easy per XML information processing theory (just try a tutorial and ask yourself 'So what's the problem?' Exactly.) and fourteen year olds stand to build empires. Where did we hear that before? Oh yeahhhh... the last time was somebody unleashed a transforming disruptive force on the population with ecologized HTML. Verizon has an ecology for SaaS. The recent news for a computer center company relationship extends into commodity computing mating SaaS with CaaS to provide computer resources on demand. Need 30 new machines? Go to this URL. Don't need them? Don't go there.

Did VCSY have anything to do with that sort of thing? That's the main habitat of VCSY brain trust. Davison is a pioneer in SNMP network agents. McAuley a pioneer in electronic document expression/affiliation across hive computers. Valdetaro a pioneer in cross continent interconnection and interoperation (so what's a hop between URL's?), Cruz a pioneer in automation and image/data transmission, Wade a pioneer in deploying international financial systems under the guidance of a pioneer in.

Just who the hell do you hillbillies think these people are and who the hell are you to pooh their existing and strong efforts. Dumb is where you are and where you'll sit if you persist in this not-invented-here attitude that is so prevalent among people of technology. Sad artists in a museum of stunted dreams.

Imagine the language you are using is abstracted for your industry and you understand what the instructions are saying because YOU could teach the damn thing a thing or two about what you do in your industry and... THAT is what Emily/XML is about.

Imagine that language allows you to connect any software to any software such that you can connect all that software with software connecting to hardware. What would you make and interconnect and interoperate.

Try it with .Net? Yeah. You and Nabisco.

Try it with AJAX. And then try to sell it.

Watch it with emPath. And learn.

Hey! Quit wasting the energy complaining. Start doing something about what your industry is going to adopt whether you think so, like so, hope not, woulda thought...

This isn't a human you're going to face. It's a technology that will take your programming job away from the lesser of your ranks and demand a greater inventiveness against a competitive backdrop of a WORLD of developers available on a socialized creation and delivery frame.

The damn thing isn't a programmer who will roll their eyes when you leave the room. It's a SiteFlash/Emily Framework optimized for your industry, activity, hobby, necessity, entertainment... it's a very high level language with its own web server for every construct element if desired with which non-programming users may construct applications and frameworks. It frees you from having to deal with the programmers. Heaven.

Microsoft looks like they are rolling out the first of those elements in a very measured, deliberate and some might say a ridiculously slow way...

Salesforce is bold and they use dotNet. NOW Solutions is bold and they use dotNet.

People, a patent is a description of a work flow and architecture by which you can make your own. If you use SiteFlash in whatever constructs VCSy puts out (read up on ResponseFlash) you will be able to leverage legacy rather than having to accomodate it.

'Make money off what's there' is the first idiom for virtualization. Why make new? To keep the developers on the r&d task force? Screw that.

'Rent before build. Build before buy.' That's the second idiom for virtualization and the first corollary for enablement.

Enablement lets you hold hands. Virtualization lets you kiss. transmutation (employing virtualization and enablement with abstracted idealism (what extension and interconnectivity leads to) ...lets you make more of whatever you want, as opposed to the sameness breeders locked in 'syntax' and 'type' and non-compliances 'issues'.

IBM DB2 9 (codename Viper) was introduced first in November 2005 as Microsoft pulled farther away from marketing their XML creations and projects.

How many people were pulled from XML to complete Vista? Amazing they could have had something like Siteflash in 2001 and they didn't try. They thought VCSY would die. What could they have done with that? Amazing. The tools VCSY patents provide are transcendent in that they creates an access and facilitation method for the other 80% of world data not represented by structured databases by Microsoft Oracle and the etcetera sisters.

XML is arcane and hidden from the user base as it should be. It only muddies the discussion and provides hiding places for scoundrels and charlatans. The measure is performance. Talk is easy and the bigger the giant the bigger the voice and impact on others.

Do or shut up.

Something like IBM's DB2 9 should be the first bell to ding in the head of anyone familiar with what can be done with XML theory. Adobe Apollo should be the second. There are others but you can ask about that at Raging Bull. We are still to see an answer to IBM DB2 9 (codename Viper) from Microsoft or Oracle and I would bet Microsoft is depending on the smug 'not invented here' attitude of their development population to ignore it and hope it disappears or is a fad.

The imploding fact MSFT doesn't acknowledge is the value of what DB2 9 can do with structured and unstructured data TODAY using the XML theory in practice. They had it, showed it, crowed it with Yukon but another animal got tootered. Musta been frostbite from the perfectly bad Hailstorm. Their stumbles and stumps have still not driven them any faster in providing at least SOMETHING like Yukon... I mean the ORIGINAL description of Yukon before it got neutered at the interfacing line relegating itself to communing with others of its own kind.

And let's get clear about what I'm saying when I say 'agnostic'. Agnostic is 'I don't care a fig. Arbitrary means anything anytime anywhere. You can't say that about .Net. Sorry, unless you build your own interfacing infrastructure and most likely you will be violating the principles of this 7,076,521 transactional port. 'Port Uno' I like to call it. It can be anything in any circumstance with any capability. It's a web server with a SGML based language to make it run. Or other languages may be applied as desired. Arbitrary. Get it?

What SiteFlash allows is to merge the 7,076,521 power in a granular way to transactional and operational nodes and joints (knuckles in an web-based automational regime) to construct operational frameworks interconnected with all other resources.

Go ahead. Say they're only waiting for a business driver to be identified in Web 2.0. Oz gets it but we don't get Oz. Microsoft understands services but we don't see services from Microsoft. If these things they are cranking out are the cream of their produce, they got bad cabbage.

You don't get anything but high flying language and paper capabilities from Microsoft. Then, when the proof has to be on the table, it's a half backed cassarole of the previous 'culled for excellence' crapplets. Jolly Green Pissant. The only time they are pro-active, as with the early XML campaign, they end up running out of steam and delaying, defusing, decoying, diligently degenereting obfuscation. I would have said deceit to maintain the chain, but, that's for a higher authority to demonstrate. I'm just a pair of eyes on the situation with electronic ears and a heart full of mold. Obfuscation is easy to see. I can't prove the intent. That's the purvue of lawyers.

Mostly likely none of the Microsoft users want web services because they never heard of them and have no idea what can be done with web services and the XML base. They never heard Bill's 'XML is the Future!' speeches in 2000 and 2001 and 2002 and then, he started tailing off a bit there until he was squeezed down to a peep around the end of 2004 and then Lucovsky absconded with the family joules in 2005 and Google made a big bucks bonanza rolling out one AJAX implementation and innovation after another and where is Microsoft? Their SOA died the death and they are behind the curve on SaaS. Now, their dotNet has the lazy trots and lowdogging crawl.

'XML too hard. Make head hurt. Hand bleed. No like XML in fair fight. Fight XML with RSS cave. Nobody see. Nobody know.'

The future bodes very well for VCSY SiteFlash (Conceptually OWNING Apollo, Mono, Expression/dotNet concepts) and Agent (Conceptually OWNING Flex/Ajax concepts).

I would suspect VCSY will participate in the open-sources movement having abstracted some valuable property out of the seminal patent frameworks by now. Something like a programming language done in 200,000 lines of code to build controls for the James Webb Space Telescope indicates the kind of advancement in capability informed by the three intellectual properties areas has at least been established as a working thing in IBM.

Microsoft I think might as well make a play for some sort of market share under infringement because they expect to pay the piper and they want a yardstick to measure what they can do with what they could have and what demand is out there. Of course nobody asks them for web services so what do they know. They were just developing this stuff in the back in case it ever caught on. Now they have to finish it... or bargain for the right.

Now that the infringement suit is in the open and they don't have to sit on the knowledge, they can act like 'Who? Us? We've been doing this all this time and the technology is only now "Mature" for our taste.' I knew a guy who cruised nursing homes because the women were 'easy'. Is that it, Softy? Who's a 'troll' now?

The truth of the matter is Microsoft's technology is reaching the stage where it can show some mature signs but shouldn't be allowed to mate. Kind of like fuzz on a teenager's chin. Impresses him and his friends but that one hair at a time in clumps would get plucked out one by one if he lost a bet in a barfight.

The technology is mature, all right. It's mature in the hands of VCSY and what reports we've heard about people using the stuff. IBM and Verizon, for what we, know have been pressing the ball to the hoop consistently for two years now.

All the while Microsoft is boggled down in... who knows, but it's only very recent MSFT has shown any progress in their XML-Based virtualized world ... never mind the internet, just the ability to interconnect and interoperate their own applications would be a huge advancement.

Expression goes out there with the new XAML content management system and the developers freaked out. Why? Because they're still using crappy .Net tools and methods and 'Why should 'designers' only have tools to build look and feel applications?' Why, Microsoft was shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you, to find developers could use something like XAML.

Quite a show of duplicity. Quite a demonstration of awareness and conscious avoidance.

I say 'Why shouldn't the user be allowed a virtualized package of both expression and dotNet in one package?' Not two applications packaged in the same box but one application that does all three capabilities. And where is Microsoft's micro-kernel and their 'dynamic language'. Where's their Very High Level Language constructs and frameworks? Where's all the $#!@ they've been barking about? Looks mighty lonely in that barnyard. A few clucks and a jackass or two and yards and yards of compost. Molded money.

What? Is MSFT boggled down in being too big? I think so. I think a fair remedy would be to break the thing down like a butcher would segment a pig. Don't even need dotted lines. You can easily see where the joints are.But why did we have to wait six years from 2001 to ever see it?

Heck, at this point just give me an OpenOffice with one quick download and type your moniker in and agree to not be evil and bingo wangy, you too can cook up a dotdoc for over 1000% less than a MSOffice upgrade.

I like it. It works on my machine so I don't have to be tied to the internet. What more do I need out of word than the tools for creating a formatting document?

Much of the advanced capabilities were seeded nubs by which a scripting language beyond macros would create automateable applications interconnected with Microsoft applications. It just all never came to be so there is a ton of unused capability in every box of Word. That's what you pay for whether you use it or not.

Why didn't it ever pull together? You need deterministic bicameral transactions across an arbitrary data gap using a ubiquitous media with a universal language for human/machine work. Simple enough.

This is all the result of either sandbagging or incompetence. Which would MSFT prefer? Heck, they were willing to hang up their development reputation on the idea they don't know how to deliver software. What are they in business for beyond that first item? And THIS is how Microsoft is making money?

Just imagine what their parts will be able to do when they finally decide to play well with others. Just think what goodies I could have if I were hooked up to the internet? All kinds of services including collaboration and affilated transactional author/review/audit tracking and permanent safe storage in a federated third-party automated server farm where no human beings can go and where the security is absoluely bulletpoof.

The audit community recognizes the current verify/validate/audit-chain provides an assurance of validity and voracity to a body of documents or data. Why? Because that mass of data passes by so many human hands in its travels from birth to retirement there is never a 100% guarantee against the possibility someone tampered. The current verification regime available in a traditional one computer one software package interfacing with many on a collective network can not detect deliberate and skilled tampering without involved and difficult/expensive/privacy elements to comlicate the matter.

An electronic document in the hands of humans is a disaster waiting to be perpetrated. And the 'assurance' is only for a snapshot in time.

What VCSY appears to be able to assemble on one to millions of servers on ever increasing scales, is the ability to provide a machine envelope partitioned by unassailable security measures from anyone other than the tampering user. The security layers are complementary and provide pro-active and autonomous capabilities 1. (StatePointPlus))to sense any hardware of software change in the configuration of the networked machines, 2. (IA)to identify at the moment of execution setup a non-body activity with no needs for models and updates, 3. to encryption services by TecSec. 4. distributed architecture reducing target size everywhere and allowing for highly flexible accessibility with verified supervision and escort of data.

I know there are smart cookies out there that are already working on a way to slice through the bits and find some theoretical limitations to the ImmuneApp/StatePointPluc/TecSec security envelope for distributed agents. Put that on automous server centers and we have a bull that can buck.

waving the wikiwand:
# Short Bull, a Brulé Sioux involved in the Ghost Dance movement
# Sitting Bull, a Hunkpapa Sioux medicine man and leader
# White Bull, a Sioux leader

See. There are differences in leadership and style but they didn't give people a name just because they could afford one.

There's a difference between a $#!@@^& Bull and a Bull $#!@+~. The difference? Willingness to put the family joules to risk. Not just the assets but the energy as any investment not worth being passionate about is not worth being anything about.

I go toward the 'you're selling your time' thing to rationalize what people do. I've sold 7 years of my life (as have many longs here) which equates to more than 10% of my accumulative time on a pro-rated regressive rate [so far] in order to reap in the future what I believe will make ANYONE's seven year effort look paltry in comparison.

Is it the money? Apparently that's not the motivation throughout the race or I would have stashed that cash in a CD somewhere and I would have at least an increased amoutn of cash.

With VCSY it's been not a profitable ride up to now.

But, where the CD was safe and brought a respectable amount in cash, my investment begun in 2000 is well on its way to being unbelievable in anyone's venue.

So the best way to learn to ride a big bull is to learn to ride a big bear first. Once you've done that, you can lecture VCSY longs on 'investment theory' and 'signs to watch for'.



Benjamin said...

Amen Port.............amen.

Anonymous said...

At every dance there are stories within stories.---I always wondered about the wallflowers---usually one myself. Stories in the dance.---in footnotes.

Tod Nielson left Microsoft after more than a decade (and work on .net) to start Crossgain which was then bought by BEA.

BEA and MST are cooking together now. --But Tod is the new executive at Borland.

Borland has had many ups and downs in the last decade. Msft has been enemy and friend. At one time a rumor surfaced that Borland was actually the parent of .net--

But neither here nor there---Borland becomes a player and a cheerleader.,1000000121,2129413,00.htm

Adhesive was robust in 1999 and 2000--putting out product and expanding office space and number of employees.--As the bubble burst they brought in a vp from none other than Borland.

This is how this former vp of Borland, (now devloper of .net)-- ( and maybe central to its origins) bills himself today.--He says, regarding his time at Adhesive---
"... Under his guidance, the company was able to complete the software development, productize the technology, protect the intellectual property, retain key employees, and maximize shareholder value through an asset sale to a public company..."

Anyone want to argure this guy doesnt know the differnce between .net and SiteFlash? I wouldnt. The dance goes on.

For those unaware--VCSY is the public company to which Adhesive sold various assets including the SiteFlash technology.--Following a red carpet debut as Enfacet---it disappeared.

portuno said...

thanks. nice development and makes more sense as time goes on. I do wonder what Nick and the rest of the lawyerly types in Chicago know about all these critters and varmints.

poscash said...

Hey Portuno! Awesome read as always and please do keep them coming as I and others thoroughly enjoy your posts! Have a nice evening!

Benjamin said...

Port the more and more I read up on VCSY's patents I wonder if this could be some sort of prelude to AI. I say so because once you start knitting applications to become aware of each other, and siteflash's ability to take applications and OS's into infinity then eventually one/something must turn back on one's Self......Which creates awareness. Only because the infinite provides for platform or field for perpetuality.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the dance---and Mr. George W. Macintyre---

I was not suggesting that he was complicit in misuse of the technology---to the contrary--coming out of a background like his--inclusive of much of what was central to the beginning of what is now emerging on the common marketplace as Web Services---he nevertheless isolated the technology, productized it, safegaurded it, and sold it. ---Point being the technology is what it is and will not be established by way of legaleze in the court--as has been suggested by some of the less informed commentaries. Alot of mixed partnering in this dance and people certainly dont always leave with who they came--but I think persons like the one mentioned here might be an asset (if needed) to what is underway with the law suit.
Worth looking at the mixing of technology by others (intentional or not)through the last eight years--but those who know the tech should comment--.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.