Apology

[Jeff Shannon]

Timothy Rue wrote:

>  There is plenty being withheld from
> the consumers, including freedom to create what they need ...

So, are you also expecting that the automotive industry allow you to build your own car?
I mean, it's all done by robots anyhow, right?  So why not let *you* direct those robots?
For that matter, you're a cabinet-maker.  Do you forge your own hammers?  Make your own
saws?  I mean, it's a simple procedure -- just make a mold and dump molten metal in it,
right?  So why is the tool-industry preventing *you* from doing that?  Sounds like a
conspiracy to me...


> and to do so
> without abuses of the over complexity generated by the computer industry,
> who continuely asks the consumer "where do you want to go today?" because
> those in the computer industry simply are to disconnected from the
> consumer/user base to know and lacking in ethics plenty enough to simply
> give the consumer/user the tools to go where they want..

While there are indeed some companies that lack ethics, and MS is indeed the biggest and
probably the worst of them, your sweeping over-generalization of the entire computer
industry as being similarly unethical, is simply not true.  It's just as accurate to say
"White people are racist" -- many are, but many are not.  (And many non-white people are
racist as well.)   Painting all of them with the same brush will not gain you anything but
resentment.


> What of the double speak computer industry dictionary? The one that has
> "we" in it for talking to the in a manner of them preceiving it as
> inclusive of them but for those using it it really means not inclusive f
> the public. And other such double meaning ........ standard
> definitions.....?????

This paragraph makes no sense.  I am unable to parse this into anything meaningful.  I
don't know if English is your first language or not, but please be aware that it is
important to use clear language if you wish to be taken seriously.  We can't discuss with
you if we can't understand you.

However, if you're referring to someone using "we" to describe what that individual
believes to be opinions shared by others, well...  this is *hardly* limited to the
computer industry, and seems to be a standard behavior throughout society.


> There is a physics to abstraction manipulation, including such abstraction
> manipulation as the double speak dictionary and programming abstractions
> that boils down to bit manipulation of physical switches.

No.  Physics deals strictly with *physical* things.  Abstractions are, by definition,
non-physical.  There may indeed be specific rules involved in the manipulation of
abstraction, but they are, by definition, not physics.  If you want to understand more
about the current state of science regarding abstraction manipulations, I suggest that you
take a few cognitive psychology courses.  Indeed, if you *were* coming from a psychology
background, then your ideas about these "nine actions" would carry a lot more weight.

Also note that even if we do accept that your "nine actions" are a valid summation of all
manipulations of abstraction (something that you've failed to demonstrate), this still
does not mean that it is straightforward to implement a system which somehow makes use of
these actions to create nontrivial, *correct* computer applications.  (Correct, in this
sense, meaning that they do what they are supposed to do, i.e., provide correct answers,
handle invalid input gracefully, etc.)


> I have no doubt that those who have made a living off of such
> manipulations of bits, abstraction and consumers certainly don't want to
> be exposed for the wrongful manipulators that are.

Hm.  You, as a cabinet-maker, have presumably required people to pay *you* money to
manipulate chunks of wood and bits of metal and plastic.  You seem to have no compunctions
about making a living off of those consumers, instead of giving them your tools and
letting them build their own cabinets.  Does this not make you, equally, a wrongful
manipulator?


> Clearly there is a priority here where the coding is not on top of the
> list but rather ...... well what do you suppose Neo ment in that last
> line of the Movie, The Matrix?

Y'know, I haven't seen that movie.  And if you consider anything from a mainstream movie,
made in Hollywood, to be an unbiased representation of reality, even in a symbolic way,
.... then I pity you.


> You don't understand the problems because you refuse to look at yourself.

Hello, Kettle.  May I introduce you to Mr. Pot?

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International