| |
Summary of our Noble Goals & not so noble but certainly Ethical Motives
|
|
|
Today there are so many contradictions and errors in the concepts of software components and CBD for software, which were result of errors injected in 1960s (when computer science was in its infancy -
kindly investigate brief history of software
components). It is an irrefutable fact: Today the term ‘software components’ is used as a synonym to the much broader term ‘many kinds of useful software part’, where software parts of each kind is defined by a given set of properties (i.e. each of the software parts of the kind must have the properties).
The previous fact can be easily validated by any software expert. Isn't it an
obvious error?
|
|
|
Kindly allow me to illustrate the obvious error using a simple analogy: 'Horse' is a specific kind of 'animal', so isn’t it an error to use the term 'horse' as a synonym to broader term 'animal' (that includes many kinds of animals including a specific kind of animal - 'horse'). Toady, if one goes to
a large trade show, exhibition for the software components or reads best selling books on CBSD, he can find many kinds of useful parts, except real-software-components (i.e. essential for achieving
real-CBSD). It was like going to trade show or exhibition for horses 700 years ago and finding
35 kinds of useful animals, except the horses (e.g. for creating a cavalry). Of course, each kind of animal may be useful in a specific manner (e.g. Chicken for eggs
and meat), but it doesn’t change the fact that none of them are horses (absolutely essential for Cavalry).
|
|
|
How can any one claim to be an expert on horses, while believing and using the term ‘horses’ as synonym to ‘animals’ by calling dogs a kind of horses and pigs yet another kind of horses? Likewise, software researchers, scientists and experts refer to each kind of useful parts (having given set of properties, which are either defined
or agreed in the past or in future by a committee of software experts) a kind of software components. Furthermore, they defined the CBSE/CBSD (CBD for software) as using such kinds of software parts (i.e. fake components).
|
|
|
The existing computer science and software engineering was started in 1960s by relying on such erroneous seed premise (or postulation).
Without realizing the errors, scientists and researchers have been working vary hard
with passion for advancing the software engineering, which resulted in creating a complex paradigm comprising vast and growing web of interdependent concepts and mental models (comprising
epicycles and retrograde
motions), and also resulted in a deeply entrenched collective conventional wisdom.
|
|
|
Since everyone have been under the impression for decades that CBSD already have software components (e.g. horses in the above analogy), there is no reason for anyone to spend time for discovering unique nature of the real components (e.g. horses) for identifying them in software application (or searching
to find the real horses)?
|
|
|
Even a small error made at the very beginning of any field, would often magnify as the mankind invests heavily to advance the field
by relying on the error for deriving newer concepts. This magnification shall be apparent in the form of a paradoxical paradigm comprising many obvious contradictions (which today are justified by using baseless excuses such as software is unique or different without ever even trying to grasp why and in what manner).
|
|
|
By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox
-– Galileo Galilee
|
|
|
The deeply entrenched paradigm and collective wisdom makes even simple facts counter intuitive, while obvious contradictions either invisible or justified as natural rational progression of the seed premise. For example,
epicycles and retrograde motion are natural rational progression of then seed premise ‘Geocentric-model’ (i.e. the Earth is static
at center). Each counter intuitive fact or invisible contradiction of such entrenched paradigm are otherwise obvious to any competent philosopher or expert of any other field of science or engineering.
|
|
|
Unfortunately there is no humble or polite way for stating facts for exposing the errors. Even if we politely request an opportunity for exposing the errors or resulted misconceptions (in the deeply entrenched paradigm or collective wisdom), many experts feel, we are offending common sense or insulting collective wisdom. Many experts feel we are arrogant or disrespectful for not falling in line, when they refer to seminal research papers or quote an acclaimed scientist. Many others are highly skeptical and suspicious about our sanity or motives. All these make it nearly impossible to compel experts evaluate our discoveries with
open mind.
|
|
|
This task of exposing the errors is further complicated by complex process and exercise one must go through with
open mind for discovering the unique nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every real physical active-component in the world. We can’t expose the error to any expert without the expert
willingly try to discover the nature of real components. The discovery of
the essential properties of real components proves that it is simple to invent equivalent software component
(having the essential properties).
|
|
|
On the other hand, it is easy to discover (e.g. either already known by intuition or deducted by simple reasoning and common sense) the unique nature and essential
aspects (e.g. CBD-structure or
CBD-process etc.) uniquely and universally shared by CBD of any physical products. Also, in the field of any science or engineering, a small error made at the early stage, if not detected, would often magnify and result in a paradox as mankind invests heavily to advance the field. So, I felt it is easier to expose the error in seed postulations by leveraging obvious contradiction in the
paradox and by using known fats and valid observation about the CBD of physical products. Today most experts already know most of the facts about the physical-CBD and rest (if any) can be comprehended by conducting simple enquiry.
|
|
|
Furthermore I already have and can demonstrate hundreds of real software components and CBD-structures, which can be used to provide an irrefutable proof to experts: There is no valid reason why software can’t achieve a structure logically equivalent to the CBD-structure by inventing real software components having the unique essential properties universally shared by each and every physical
component in the world, so are equivalent to the real components.
|
|
|
Therefore, I defined real-CBSD is achieving a structure equivalent to the CBD-structure by using real-software-components that are equivalent to the physical active-components. To avoid any possible confusion due to the existing paradigm, one must keep in mind that it is not necessary that even a single component in the CBD-structure to have any useful properties that are erroneously attributed to software components exist today.
|
|
|
Unfortunately irrational skeptics try to divert, discredit or insult by questioning motives or ethics in our efforts
for exposing the errors. So we are disclosing our motives in the following full
& fair statement. It may not be noble but not unethical to build a
profitable business honestly.
|
|
Fair Full Disclosure Statement:
|
|
|
Please kindly allow me to disclose our objectives and motives (i) Our noble goal is putting the advancement of software engineering on the right track by exposing the errors in the seed postulations that derailed advancement of software engineering for decades, for example, by offering attractive incentives (see
contact-us) to who could help us in this complex and noble endeavor. (ii) After making satisfactory progress in exposing the error, our (not so noble) motive is earning money by building a profitable business for offering software services, licensing Tools for CBSD & patents.
Also whoever contributed to this noble endeavor deserved to be rewarded.
|
|
|
Unfortunately many hypocrites insist, we must not make money on software patents. It is hypocrisy because, each of them is being paid for their work and most of them is paid for creating software products (which are licensed for paying them).
We invested not on creating products but on research to create genuine
inventions, so patents are our products. Why don’t we deserve to be paid for our huge
risk and hard work for advancing our beloved computer science by contributing genuine
discoveries, which are result of investment spanning more than a decade?
|
|
|
Unfortunately, many argue that patenting software inventions and licensing software patents is unethical. The founding fathers created the patent system for helping to promote genuine inventions by providing patent protection (especially to individual inventors or to encourage small businesses to invest on research). We feel, our inventions are quintessential examples for genuine patents the founding fathers intended to help, since patent protection is essential to bring inventions to market by a struggling inventor or fledgling business.
|
|
|
I certainly could not and would not take this kind of huge risk (on behalf of my
whole family), if there is nothing to be gained for enduring snubs or insults,
when trying to expose the errors of seed premises and countless seminal works and acclaimed concepts derived from the seed premises.
I felt many of the papers and concepts were impeccable and inspiring, when
I read them years ago before beginning to suspect & discover errors in the
seed postulations.
|
|
|
Even if we were prepared to do this for free, our chances of exposing the errors will be only a fraction, if we can’t offer any reward to others for helping in this complex endeavor (since many experts
often question our sanity, when we insist that there are errors in seed premise of widely practiced and deeply entrenched paradigm).
If there is nothing to be gained form their effort, why any big company invest time to evaluate our discoveries and if satisfies help us expose the error? There are so many other such issues we face in our struggle to expose the errors. For example, few executives of large companies even feel they are risking their reputation, if I am wrong. Understandably they can’t be as confident as I am on the inventions, since
even I spent many years to gain confidence that all the technological risks are eliminated.
|
|
|
Even our discoveries and inventions are flawless there is no guarantee that we will be financially successful (e.g. due to
non-technological business risks such as marketing or execution). For example, many top executives refuse to give us an opportunity by saying software patents are useless (especially for a small family owned business) and
if unlikely chance we are right they can certainly get the inventions for free, because large companies most likely drive any small business into bankruptcy by
playing dirty ticks and litigation. What a fledgling business can do, except
trying to be careful and vigilant to minimize the such risks?
|
|
|
If we decided to solicit investment for any reason in the future (e.g. to sustain our effort of exposing the errors), it is certainly unethical on our part to ask the investment without potential for profit? Our business model for exposing the errors is very
unique (e.g. no examples or role models), so exploring each of the promising ways in this kind of uncharted territory by not really knowing what would work. If any one still insists patenting
software and licensing such genuine inventions is unethical, we must disagree and can’t respect such extreme hypocrisy.
|
|
Many experts doubt or question my sanity for saying things, which
might appear to be offending common sense or insulting entrenched conventional wisdom. But irrefutable facts are: The
experts defined useful software parts such as reusable or standardized
software-parts that are comparable ingredient-parts (e.g. cement, steel, paint, silicon, plastic or metals) are
software-components. How can any expert question my sanity, when brilliant experts insist CBSD (CBD for Software) is using such fake
software components (by ignoring many simple facts about CBD of physical-products/components and
try to justify by using unsubstantiated excuses  ).
|
|
I can’t give up this noble effort of exposing the errors that, I am absolutely
sure, derailed the software engineering and costing tens of billions of dollars each year, just because
irrational skeptics might insult,
question my sanity or motives. Of course, many time in the early years I lost my confidence,
confused  and questioned myself about my
sanity. After spending many years verifying each and every fact, I am absolutely sure
that I am cool  .
|
|
Even if a brilliant expert were to expose a valid flaw in our basic discoveries  , I feel, the expert would appreciate my effort for collecting so many pieces of unknown information (e.g. facts, valid observations and concepts) and openly sharing all the information in this website.
If really there were to exist any valid flaw in our basic discoveries and a brilliant
expert finds it soon, I shall be thankful for the expert for salvages my
life from wasting on such futile effort any more, because I know for fact that I
can't make money or contribute to the world economy (see PPS).
|
|
|
| |
| The Structure of Scientific Revolutions |
|
|
True essence of real scientific progress is discovering new facts (or truths) for expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. When there are errors in basic postulations of a scientific field, the errors derail
any meaningful scientific progress sooner or later. It is impossible to put scientific progress on the right tracks without exposing the errors. |
|
| At any time, since 1960s, tens of thousands of scientists and researchers have been working very hard with
passion to expand the human knowledge (e.g. by applying brute force) without ever
even trying to validate the basic postulations. The brute force applied in wrong direction to expand scientific
knowledge only builds up useless pressure. This pressure buildup can be exploited
for rapid expansion of knowledge, if the pressure is directed in the right direction by exposing the
errors. |
|
|
|
|
