Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> 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.

He merely erred...

>
>
> 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...
>

It not stealing, but, you can't know that because
the same kind of dogma that your reject, is
hardwired into your brain. You fail to employ
reasoning, you merely apply a simplistic rule,
and form a judgment based on this simplistic
rule.

In order for any wrong to occur, there must
be a harmful effect. In the case of stealing
the harmful effect is the loss of something of
value by its legitimate owners. With most
(if not all) Apple Dos 3.3 software, there
is no commercial viability (potential revenue
exceeding the cost of generating this revenue)
thus there is no value to be misappropriated.
Secondly the owners have so thoroughly
abandoned their software that no one can
find them. Abandonment relinquishes ownership.
So not only is their no value, there are no
owners.

You sound like that guy who continued to
criticize me for posting to the "wrong"
newsgroups because I would most often
post everything to both apple2, and
apple2.programmer. He kept complaining
that I posted stuff to the programmer group
that did not belong there. I then posted
a question about OS SourceCode, in
both groups, not crossposted, a separate
post to each. He asked in the "correct"
(programmer) group where are the
answers, I had to tell him that everyone
whom posted answers ONLY posted
them to the "wrong" group... Thus proving
my point and disproving his.

>
>  *>*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