Re: Source Code for OS?

[Quantum_Cat <quantum-no-spam@cotse.com>]

Hiya, Ol'coot.

 *>> Au contraire.   It is unreasonable to assume the existance of anything and
 *>> everything humans can possibly imagine, without evidence.  And
 *>extraordinary
 *>> claims such as yours require extraordinary evidence.
 *>>

 *>Although this is reasoning is "conventional wisdom" it fails to be correct. 

So you live in a universe jam packed with pixies, fairies, unicorns, djinni, 
incubus, succubus, dragons, and the vast multitude of spirits and invisible 
thingies from every religion and folktale in human history?  

It looks like you have such an open mind that your brain has fallen out and 
rolled under the bed with the other dust bunnies.  ;)

 *>The ONLY way to the actual truth is to assume the exhaustively complete
 *>enumeration of every possible assertion, rejecting only those that result in
 *>contradiction.

Not a bad definition if we're talking about about mathematical proofs, but then 
Godel shot your assertion down years ago.  He demonstrated that no matter how 
well you construct your premises and rules, there will always be aspects of it 
that will remain unprovable, whether true or false.

So your assertion has no merit.  *Ding* *Ding* ... Try again, Coot.  ;)

 *>Although this leaqves many unaswered questions, it NEVER leaves one with an
 *>incorrect answer.

I'll point you to:

http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/godel.html

Perhaps you'd best skip it though.  It's liable to overload your brain.  ;)

 *>>
 *>> Following YOUR logic, you must believe that there's an invisible Pink
 *>AllPowerful
 *>> Unicorn in my basement.  Simply because you lack "complete proof that this
 *>> possibility is not indeed true."
 *>>

I notice you neglected to answer this point.  Chicken?  ;)

 *>> The burden of proof rests on your shoulders, Ol'coot.  Otherwise,
 *>everything that
 *>> every moron utters would have to be true until proven false.
 *>>

Ah... You ran away from this one too.  ;)

 *>> I much prefer withholding judgement until sufficient evidence presents
 *>itself.
 *>> Disbelief as a default makes MUCH more sense.  ;)
 *>>

 *>You are not withholding judgment.

Oh?  Trying to force this into a dichotomy?  Too simplistic.  There are many 
situations where we are forced to just say, "I don't know."  There's a whole 
spectrum of judgement, Coot.  

 *>You have already decided. 

Yes.  My default is disbelief, until swayed by evidence.  Get that.  Swayed.  ;)

And the evidence is that you are a member of the Turlettes by your own testimony 
in this and other threads.

Not only a Turlette, but a self-righteous one at that.  Popping up with 
ridiculous assertions that my taunting of Turlettes is going to anger your 
particular Diety and send me to Hell.  Heh.  ;)

 *>You have decided that its worth the risk of (seemingly improbable) Hell, for
 *>the right to be mean and nasty.

Well, if you feel safe in stealing other folks stuff without retribution...

 *>*snip*

 *>> But atheists aren't making supernatural claims, Ol'coot.  And in general,
 *>if a
 *>> rational person makes a claim, he can at least present _some_ kind of
 *>evidence to
 *>> back him up.  If not, then he deserves no more regard as anyone else
 *>making
 *>> unfounded assertions.  Now why don't YOU present evidence for this "Hell",
 *>Hmmm?
 *>>
 *>>  *>In statistics this is known as a type two statistical error.
 *>>
 *>> BS.  That's know as Turlette Technobabble.  ;)
 *>>

 *>Just because of your ignorance of the meaning of term, does not logically
 *>entail that this term was not used correctly.

Ho ho!  I'm ignorant in many areas, that's true.  But not here.  ;)

I'll remind you that statistics is the science dealing with the collection, 
tabulation, and classification of _quantitative data_ , with the goal of using 
this in inference and inductive reasoning.

This means you have to have *SOME* kind of evidence before you can apply 
statistics.  If you have NONE, then there's certainly no Type II error.  Which, 
btw, can be reduced by a properly designed study.

So... I'll stand by my response as to the Babble nature of your comment.  You 
sling terms about when they have no meaning in the argument.  Red Herrings.  And 
Babble.  ;)

Now, if you want to design a study that quantifies your "Hell", then you can 
legitimately use that.  Please do.  ;)

 *>> Cool.... And perhaps you can stop stealing software.  It's not moral to
 *>take
 *>> someones property, intellectual or not, without their permission.
 *>>

 *>If they have utterly abandoned it, then it is immoral to let it go to waste. 
Ah... Big word, "If".  Have you asked them?  If not, you're just another looter.

 *>If you examine patent law, you will realize that owners are only allowed
 *>ownership for the benefit of society. 

Perhaps you should rewind, and take notice that we're talking about copyright law 
here.  There is a big difference.  If you're still clueless, I'll refer you to:

http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/

 *>An owner does not have the moral right to make sure that their creation is
 *>wasted.

A looter doesn't have the moral right to determine what rights the creator and 
owner of intellectual property has.  We gave that right to the government.  And 
that previous URL puts it in B/W.  Read it and weep, Ol'cooter the Looter.  ;)

Nice try,


Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat