User talk:Fraberj
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've nominated the article Independent operability for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but I personally don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent operability. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Independent operability during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Sandstein 13:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, Where (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have interpreted "patent nonsense" in the wrong way. By "patent" we do not mean it in the sense of intellectual protection of an invention or idea - by patent, we mean "something that is explicit and obvious", which is another meaning of "patent". Basically, patent nonsense means "explict nonsense" or "obvious nonsense". Thank you, and please do not make personal attacks. Stay cool. Thanks. -Jetman123 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON OTHER USERS. THERE IS NO EXCUSE.
This is a rule of this website, and when you came here you agreed to abide by this rule. Refrain from using harsh language and insulting other users or users involved in a discussion as a whole. Continue insulting other editors and you will be blocked from editing indefinitely and most probably permanently. Please cease this behaviour. -Jetman123 15:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
How exactly did I make a personal attack or threat on you? You did not, after being informed several times, POLITELY, cease making personal attacks on other contributors. When I placed the firm warning above on your talk page, I was attacking your behaviour, not you - this is not a personal attack. What you are saying to other editors IS, however. I never violated the no personal attacks policy - you have, several times. And we asked you to stop.
I did not initiate anything. It was you who placed the taunting, insulting, crude message on the talk page of Independent Operability and later on the talk page of another user. And we reacted to this. Is there something I have neglected to explain? Please inform me and I will try to clear up matters. In the meantime, I suggest you read Wikipedia: No Personal Attacks, please. As it mentions, a personal attack is an verbal attack upon another user's lifestyle, life, personal details, and insults directly towards that user. An attack upon someone's behaviour, if they are breaking the rules of the website, is not against the rules. If you'll read my previous message, you will see I never made any kind of insult towards you, yourself, as a person - I attacked your behaviour, namely your own personal attacks. I'm sorry, but you have violated the policies of this encyclopedia, and continuing to do so will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Not by my own deigning, of course - I am merely informing you of the rules and consequences and do not pretend to be in a position of any athority. -Jetman123 16:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Independent operability
Hello again :-)
I'm sorry that our debate on whether to keep your article has upset you, but I think we have a misunderstanding. By notability, we do not mean it in the way that you might use the word; our standards for notability are somewhat higher. Generally, if an achievement has not been recognized as notable by several high-profile people or sources (the patent office does not count, since there are many patents that get through that are not notable), we do not consider it notable enough. Also, if an achievement is notable enough, then someone besides the person who accomlished the achievement will want to create the article. We thus discourage people who made the said achievement from making such an article. Cheers! Where (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I haven't heard the phrase "independent operability" used in this sense. Most of the time it is used to describe functions of parts that are orthogonal. The same goes for "independent replication" which I would associate with the reproduction of an experiments results by others or some such. I also have not heard of "mechagenics" or anyone actually building such a device that the article describes. If you have sources for it (outside of a patent as that really doesn't mean it has been done) I would be glad to see it. There is also another problem with using patents as sources for a large majority of the article as they are primary instead of secondary sources. We strive to report what has already been reported in secondary sources about something, not just about a subject. This is because wikipedia is not in the business of defining the truth or facts (and would have great accuracy and reliability problems if it did). The salient policies of this are WP:V and WP:NOR. As others have noted, because of said policies, wikipedia cannot properly cover a subject that has not been covered elsewhere and it is not the place for someone to make a name for themselves (this is where WP:VAIN comes in). I actually do know who Philo Farnsworth was even though I am not using his invention. kotepho 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Independent operability is used extensively in nanotechnology (which is closely related to Mechagenics which is MY coined term for MY technology set forth explicitly in the patent, notice I did not ask that it be added). As an example of "secondary sources" using the term: Marvin Minsky (AKA: "Father of AI") used the term in this well known and broadly recited statement within the art: "Independent operability will make fission look like a mild irritation". Edd Regis, the most well known writer in nanotechnology, in his book "Nano" devoted that, his most noteworthy book mostly to the discussion on independent operability. In fact much inspiration for my developing it sprung from that book. K. Erik Drexler (HONORARY doctorate, for what? no one knows!) the loud mouthpiece before congress on nanotechnology and all his pretty picture filled books and political flashy jive but no substance (BUT PLENTY OF MEDIA NOTE!) used and promoted it extensively on his net site for the Fifth Foresight Institute (or is it sixth now?) he used the term many times (before I DID it first and he got very upset at that point and decided to quit using the term in any of his new writings or on the site). Richard Feyman in his book "Plenty of Room at the Bottom" may have it in it (I've not read it) but he has used it in public MANY times, I can't believe NONE of you have heard of it before. You can't have been reading much nanotechnology without running into it. The book Nano is FULL of the term, it's in the glossary for gosh sakes! As for the question of "vanity" the first version of my article purveyed was drawn from the works of Alex Nicholson (author, engineer, material specialist) NOT MYSELF, but when all the monkeys started throwing the p@@p I took over and added the long version to satisfy you guys' (& gals') objections. Here's the picture in a nutshell: It's well described in the book "Nano" (get it at the local library) and many other sources (and if you read them you will find that it very much is a BIG DEAL if that's what you are looking for in "notable", should be from merit had per function that you guy should ascertain) and if you go to uspto.gov site you can READ THE CLAIMS in the patent (LAST TWO LONG ONES) and you will see that the robotics division of the patent office indeed allowed it as it is described in the patent and it is a big one (86 pages), published world wide through the Patent Cooperation Treaty and last but not least I have both still photos and video of the device (tell me where to post it and I will). I do interviews and did two radio shows on WJFK. And so once and for all, FOR ALL both smart and dense, here goes a clear "romper room" definition: A machine that can have babies. Lots of NON independent replicators are about like Cornell's' (type "Cornell replicator" at Google and go right to it and note that one infringes on my patent if you can read the claims you'll see THAT'S of NOTE!) that is, ones that have parts that must be manufactured by man or beast (like life form commandeered versions). It exists my friends and someday with the power it bestows you will be asking the walls for chairs, and like plant life chairs will grow out of walls from tiles delivered through plumbing to your home of objects you shopped for on the net. It's the final error corrected control and creation of "stuff" in the home and elsewhere. Ask a cup to turn into a plate and it will if made of this replicating stuff and if sitting on a counter made of this stuff it will morph into it. It's instead of pixels on the screen controlled by computers now its the tiles in the world around you in a great hardware matrix being controlled by computers that are made up of the tiles by your verbal request. And finally (for you pure science buffs) its the addressable verbal control of mass structure to the atomic level; we are replacing the atom unit with another type of unit that is subject to verbal command and the like. You will copy THINGS like you copy software, by verbal command. A HARD INTERNET. Further it is error corrected and seldom subject to error and someday because of this VERY SOON there will be great automated factories that blast out tiles with lasers and e-beans to be delivered automatically to your home through plumbing (even frozen foods) and your house, chair, car, sidewalk etc will be made of them in a big physical LAN (Internet) of electrically conductive interlocking tiles and we will all live happily ever after REAL, REAL SOON. That is, if I can GET THE MEDIA AND YOU GUYS TO GET AT IT TO GET THE WORD OUT AND FUNDED AND ON LINE ect., ect., ect,. That's why it's called the INFINITY DEVICE (if you want to see the book written by Alex Nicholson called THE INFINITY DEVICE let me know where to upload it. (very much a technical bore for expert and novice alike but someone had to do it) It is and always will be ALL THAT WILL EVER BE NECESSARY once it attains evolution (has not yet, but soon will)... The Infinity Device... Any more questions?
Thank you so very much,
Charles Michael Collins.
P.S. I think the above writing alone by itself, if you think about it, is far worthy of note on its face as a literary work, particularly with the patent backing it (and all the above & more is in the description in the patent). I bet no one EVER told you guys ANYTHING LIKE THAT! HA! Even Orson Wells! My investor tells me he can't sleep at night after talking with me. I'm writing a movie about it: War in the Nanosphere. I play many musical instruments and did the sound track too. I have THOUSANDS of innovations. Several HUNDRED are in the patent alone (actually there were three of them, the patent office was caught with their pants down not knowing quite how to deal with it and blew the first one, they even allowed lists in the descriptions finally). Well, I guess I've bragged as my investors wanted me to do, this new "globalization" market will either get it or not soon with that new attitude which is what I suspect is the problem. Do you get the picture yet? Hey, this isn't advertising guys or vanity or whatever, it's HISTORY BEFORE YOUR EYES IN THE MAKING. DO WHAT'S RIGHT GUYS (and be a part of history, the most important part of it there ever was or will be).
To "jetman123" seems you attacked first, didn't you? Please don't insult me with more threats because I think anyone that starts the insults are responsible. And there's no excuse for you.
- I am actually quite ignorant of nanotechnology, but not the concepts of self replication and such thanks to science fiction. Nevertheless, I will try and track down a copy of Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology by Ed Regis (ISBN 0316738522) as well as reading There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom and others. Video and pictures can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons while a book would be better suited to Wikibooks. You must be wary of copyrights and licenses though. kotepho 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if "The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology" has independent operability in it, I am prety certain Nano by Ed Regis DOES (if my memory serves me well), "Nanosystems" by Drexler may have something on it but it is vast technical gobledeygoop attacked by other respectable scientists in the field) Drexler's is bottom up, mine is top down and so far bottom up has not worked. Here is a letter from a company that validates patents validity AND DEVICE validity and function per devices specifically examined, as well as the device itself photographed resting on top of the patent's gold seal (at my article). I have videos but they are old VHS, hours long as the first replicator (employing dabbing of liquids as well as tile placement) took over 14 hours to basically even begin to dipict the function and preparing them is not only not practical but would take too long before my article would be deleted. I also have the original SOFTWARE that was used to first initiate the device done in Q-basic. I can send that to you but it will have to be agreed to REMAIN A TRADE SECRET, sent for purposes only of documentation and must be deleted forthwith when the documentation of it is over. I'll also upload a drawing of the actual trace placement of the replicator's "DNA" and the tile based computer that reads its 13 tile wide "Data Track" consisting of its "DNA" encoding which contains its shape, function and other aspects. If you give me an e-mail add I'll attach it (software) to it. The photo of the replicator is now up with the article, see it there, the rest, described above are set forth right here just below:
I unfortunately managed to upload this before seeing it was a large .bmp file, look at it if you can off the upload page to understand the computing mechanism:
Funit_[DRAWING.bmp
You seem saner and a better communicater than the rest of the editors around here, thanks. I see that you found my patent on-line and discovered the crazy lists VERY FUNNY FOR POSTING IT! I ALMOST FELL OVER LAUGHING THINKING WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE GONE THROUGH & ACTUALLY TRIED READING THAT THING! It's the first patent using a computer to actually assist in computing protection. Unfortunately the patent office typed the description in wrong (over 300 errors including lead lines), funny, it was submitted in perfect shape but who ever typed it in was a bit tipsy I think! I'm in the process of doing corrections after Cornell infringed on it (see Cornell's replicator at: http://leenks.com/link15145.htm) does not really replicate and is CLEARLY A KNOCK OFF, looking for a good High Profile Lawyer to offer them a license agreement and give me the credit for the work, if you know of one I'll pay you a finders fee, infringment aspects are:
Claims infringed upon:
(NOTE: dependent claims are in ()s )
1, (d, e),4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 24, 25,27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50, 51, 54 (e, f), 55 (c), 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 (d, e, h, k, l), 70 (a, b, c, d, e), 74, 75.
As you can see the infringement is very broad and substantial and legally actionable on many independent as well as dependent claims. An infringement on one "dependent" claim is actionable but weak; an infringement against even one independent claim is substantial, particularly so if on the fundamental independent claims such as here (usually the last in the patent, in this case independent summation claims 74 & 75 bestowing independent operability the fundamental purpose aimed by the patent). There are without doubt quite a few independent claims infringing here (dependent claims are in ()s others are otherwise independent above.
If the suit was won it would be in the hundred million dollar class.
You can see Cornell's infringing replicator here at the site address set forth herein, click on the "Frames from a video" link (in blue) further down in the text of the site page to see a full color, full motion and sound video of the device in action (if you have Windows 2000 operating system or better on your computer). The primary aspects infringing, in layman's terms are the following:
It is a replicator that stacks units of building material and what is strongly infringing is that it conducts data and power from the floor (base plate) of the building platform THROUGH each building "BLOCK" in series to effect replication, a primary feature that when removed prevents Cornell's replicator from replicating and as well would the F-Unit and there is no unchallenged prior art before me in this (pure novel innovation) used for replicating OR fabricating. Further, claims in the patent clearly specify blocks in my patent for replication (as well "tiles" are considered the unit of choice in mine but blocks are needed and and indeed a depiction of a block is actually set forth in the patent: fig.13(a, b, c).
Further the software is infringed on in use and originality in very many ways. "Jointed leg" in unitized robotic fabrication, particularly for replication is clearly protected by the patent including a "stepping function" specifically. Feeding blocks in "stacks" by way of "feeding stations" is very infringed on highly original and, amazingly even is described on the site in detail using the word "feed".
Using "electrically conductive regions" to find its way around to fabricate is highly infringing particularly when detected by the "bottom of the legs" is absolutely infringing. The use of the words and language "through a column of of conductive tiles" is used in my patent to describe power and data and orientation specifically and that is FUNDAMENTALLY what Cornell is achieving clearly.
Further the Cornell replicator is not an independent operator at all and is, if you will a cheap useless knock-off that presents a very low order and class of replication if it can be at all even called that and they admit it on the site. In short, slopy work through and through. However, when complemented by my invention features can be very usefull.
The large prominent site has gotten the attention of even Jimmy Kimmel (late night TV talk) who has disparaged it which can be legally actionable, comments that I disputed on December 5, 8 on WJFK a world broad cast radio.
In short Cornell University has clearly "stolen my thunder" and is highly actionable outside patent law itself, more-so than just building the device, I would still offer them a license if it payed off and kept things out of court.
Did I see somwhere you do C++? Do any Robotics control code?
Anyway, thanks for your kind attention.
- I was able to track down a copy of Nano, but it has to come through interlibrary loan so it will be a few days before I actually have it along with a few other books. I also found a copy of Drexler's book at a college near enough that I can go there if the need arises as well as Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines by Robert Freitas. I'll certainly have enough reading to do.
- I cannot seem to locate the image FUnit-[Drawing.bmp that you refer to. If you do wish to email anything you can do so at kotepho@cox.net, although I do not think I really need the Q-Basic source code. I do program though and I know C++ along with a plethora of other languages; however, my only experience with robotics is with a couple of servos and a PIC programmer to make a tiny controllable arm.
- Sadly, I do not know any patent attorneys to recommend. Lastly, you are too kind; I only do what my mother taught me—do unto others and the like. kotepho 05:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No personal attacks!
{{Npa3}} Sandstein 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if you feel your article is being considered for deletion wrongly, then that does not entitle you to insult other users. Cease this behaviour, I'm urging you, and go about explaining why you want your page kept level-headedly, without personally attacking other users as you have been doing up until this point.
If you disagree with the concept of "vanity" articles on Wikipedia, then that is unfortunately not grounds to keep your article. If you wish to contest this, do so calmly at policy pages related to the vanity rule.
Contrary to what you may think, we are not technophobes - we have simply seen no evidence as to whether this is true and notable enough to be written about in an encyclopedia. Do not take this personally, but we have no idea if you are who you say you are, or if what you have written about and what you are saying is true - on the Internet, we must back up our facts. If you can provide some solid evidence as to why your article should be kept, how it is important, and why we know it's true, and explain it in a calm and level-headed manner, without continuing your personal attacks, then the article will most probably be kept.
Also, please remember that we have no guarantee as to whether this is actually "history in the making" as you put it - remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Just because someone says something will be notable, or history, does not mean that we can take it to be true - I don't think either of us or any of the users on Wikipedia have the capability to see into the future. -Jetman123 11:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's it. I've been polite, I've been nice, I've been accepting, I've been coaching, I've been understanding.
But when you make a personal attack on another user for their religion, blatantly and openly, that is where I draw the line.
You have blatantly and rudely insulted other users about their lifestyle, intelligence, and I'm sure in one of your long rants you questioned if someone was mentally retarded. You have crossed the line. We will tolerate those unaware of the rules or first offenders graciously, but we and myself will not stand for this.
I will be requesting administrator intervention within the next few minutes, and will provide and point out every one of your crude insults. I have no doubt that the admin in question will agree that you have crossed the line. I hope that if you are blocked, as you most probably will be, that when you return to us after the block expires, you will realize that you are doing nothing but getting yourself banned and your articles deleted because you refused to cease your vulgar insults. Good day. -Jetman123 11:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
