Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Cooter.
>
>  *>> I propose you do an "exhaustively complete categorical enumeration of
>  *>every
>  *>> possibility" of a simple electron orbiting a single unassuming hydrogen
>  *>atom of
>  *>> your choice.  If you're correct, we can toss out Heisenberg's Uncertainty
>  *>> Principle and you'll be famous.  ;)
>
>  *>This applies to conceptual knowledge, not, necessarily to empirical
>  *>knowledge.
>
> You're going to have to define your terms here, Coot.  Conceptual Knowledge?  You
> don't actually believe in Conceptualism, do you?  How do you judge between two
> contrary concepts or ideas without resorting to empiricism?

There exists a whole body of knowledge that is
purely conceptual, Kant would call it Pure A Priori.
Carnap would call it analytical.


> Or are you like
> Lewis Carroll who could believe in dozens of impossible things before breakfast?
> ;)
>
>  *>Try proving that 3 > 5...
>
> Simple enough to DISPROVE it.  ;)
>
>  *>I myself was not sufficiently precise in my own statement.
>
> I know.  And I plan to hold your feet to the fire when you lob more boneheaded
> babble about.  ;)
>
>  *>>  *>Every possible attempt to show otherwise results only from a lack of
>  *>>  *>precision in the linguistic representation of the potential
>  *>counterexample.
>  *>>
>  *>> This sounds suspiciously like the "Moving Goalposts" fallacy.  If someone
>  *>comes
>  *>> up with an example, you'd just state that it's not precise enough.
>
>  *>In this case it was my lack of precision, of qualifying the limitation to
>  *>the conceptual knowledge domain.
>
> In that "domain", anything goes.  I know you find particular comfort in this
> domain because you don't have to prove or defend anything here.  You will NEVER
> achieve precision here because it's all quicksand and opinion.
>

No its not... The whole body of purely conceptual knowledge
is immutable.

>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>It is mostly human pride that gets in the way of this.
>  *>>
>  *>> I'd say it was mostly human ignorance.
>
>  *>And this ignorance is caused by pride.
>
> Heh.  I'd say it was caused by folks not knowing something.  ;)
>
>  *>People have such strong emotional attachment to their own opinions that they
>  *>can't get past the posssibility that they might be incorrect, far enough to
>  *>pay any attention at all to other points of view.
>
> LOL!  I'd point out that this fits you to a Tee, but you'll probably ignore it
> too.  ;)

You have not presenting any REASONING here
for me to pay attention to. Merely a bald assertion.

>
>
>  *>In other words pride causes willful ignorance.
>
> Well, we've certainly seen plenty of evidence of THAT in this thread.  ;)
>
>  *>>  *>I can know everything that can ever possibly be known about a very
>  *>specific
>  *>>  *>subject.
>  *>>
>  *>> I'm game.  What's the position AND momentum of a single electron about a
>  *>hydrogen
>  *>> atom of your choice?  (Yeah, yeah... Heisenberg again..)
>  *>>
>
> Ignoring this too?

I don't know much about this subject. I do know
a little about Schrodinger's cat... Perhaps this
whole QM thing is malarkey? Einstein rejected it!
That's is the essential shortcoming with all knowledge
that is derived empirically... There can not possibly
exist any distinguishing difference between reality
and a perfect illusion...

>
>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>His assessment can be known to be true, analytically.
>  *>>
>  *>> OK.. Let's analyize this....
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>It is analytically true that an expression of violence is the
>  *>antithesis of
>  *>>  *>an expression of love, and Christ said to "Love your enemies", thus
>  *>utterly
>  *>>  *>disproving that those using violence in their Christianity were
>  *>Christian in
>  *>>  *>the use of this violence.
>  *>>
>  *>> Matthew 10
>  *>>
>  *>> 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who
>  *>is in
>  *>> heaven.
>  *>> 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come
>  *>to
>  *>> bring peace, but a sword.
>
>  *>I can't get past this myself so I ignore it.
>
> Hmmm.. You do that a lot, don't you?  That saves you the trouble of noticing that
> it's invalidated one of your assertions in any case.  ;)
>

I comprehend the reasoning behind "Love your enemies"
Comprehension is the ONLY sound way to attain truth...
My theory is that Satan wrote the above mentioned reference...

>
>  *>It is interesting to note that the Christ of the book of Revelation and
>  *>Lucifer of the book of Isaiah have the same nickname in the NIV
>  *>translation... Morning Star...
>
> Well, reading either of those books is like reliving a nasty acid trip. :O
>
>  *>Unlike most others, I approach my theology, not by the rote
>  *>letter-of-the-law,  nor by the rote word-of-God, but, by the comprehension
>  *>of the reasoning that lies underneath the words.
>
> Oh?  What's the reasoning behind:
>
> Exodus 20:15 "You shall not steal."?
>
> Or:
>
> Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your
> neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or
>  his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."
>
> I think software would fall under the "anything" portion of that... ;)
>

Current software that has commercial viability YES.
Antique software that has no use except the novelty
of its antiquity, that has been utterly abandoned by
its owners, NO... The owner can always (under
current copyright law) resurface and assert their
ownership rights, ** the fact that they don't combined
with the fact that there is no demand for their product
(except as antique novelty) is sufficient evidence
that using it is not theft.

** Works for hire is limited to 75 years


>
>  *>Comprehension is the ONLY way to truth, belief (and disbelief) are mere
>  *>stumbling blocks.
>
> Uh... Yeah.  Were you going to try it someday? ;)
>
>  *>>
>  *>> 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against
>  *>her
>  *>> mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
>  *>>
>  *>> Luke 14
>  *>>
>  *>> 26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and
>  *>wife
>  *>> and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he
>  *>cannot be
>  *>> my disciple.
>  *>>
>  *>> Mark 14
>  *>>
>  *>> 21 For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by
>  *>whom
>  *>> the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he
>  *>had not
>  *>> been born."
>  *>>
>  *>> I could continue, Coot... I got a million of 'em..  I hope you noted that
>  *>these
>  *>> were spoken by Jesus hisself.
>  *>>
>
>  *>Ah, or at least attributed to him. I always consider every possibility until
>  *>they have been utterly disproven.
>
> I truly doubt that, Cooter..  Even in simple situations, the possibilities
> increase exponentually.  One, if you considered EVERY possibility, you would have
> little time to function.  Two, there are possibilities that are impossible to
> prove or disprove (like my Pink Unicorn earlier).

That is why these possibilities must be considered CATEGORICALLY...
Boiling them down to the smallest set of relevant cateogories makes
this feasible.

>
>
> The only way you could possibly think that you had complete comprehension is if
> you ignored most of the possibilities.  Oh.  Heh.  ;)
>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>Note that what I say here is no mere fallible human opinion, but can be
>  *>>  *>derived purely analytically, thus not subject to human error.
>  *>>
>  *>> Well... all I can do is wave Godel and Heisenberg at you and hope you
>  *>actually
>  *>> seek a proper education.  ;)
>  *>>
>
>  *>Now I do know Kurt, he is within my field, and he erred in his famous
>  *>"Incompleteness Theorem"...
>
> Then publish immediately!  You would become famous, and possibly rich!
>
> Or laughed out of your profession.  ;)
>
>  *>>  *>Focus ONLY on righteousness, and unrighteousness will leave (at least
>  *>you)
>  *>>  *>on its own.
>  *>>
>  *>> Yeah!  Does this mean you're going to stop stealing software and become
>  *>> righteous, Coot?
>  *>>
>
>  *>Taking something that the owners have abandoned is not stealing.
>
> Ah.  I answered this in another post.  The Copyright laws say nothing about
> abandonment and everything about the protection of intellectual property, making
> your point in error.
>

As I have stated many times, I am not referring to the letter-of-the-law,
I am referring to the spirit-of-the-law. Taking something that has
no value is not stealing (even legally) taking something that has
been abandoned is not stealing, either (even legally). In this case
we very probably have at least one of these two conditions.
If no unused copies have been sold by the original owners,
or anyone that they may have assigned the rights to in
a few years, and the reason for this is that this software has
been made utterly obsolete by hundred-fold improvements
in the level of functionality, that in this case there is no harm
does to the original owners (or their assigns) by freely
distributing these copies.

Let's take the case of an Apple Dos 3.3 word processing
program that has not been distributed commercially for at
least ten years...

I dare you to use reasoning on this one. In the specific case
cited, try to find a sound counter-example where the owners
(defined as the original developers, or their anyone that they
may have directly assigned their rights to) would be harmed
by freely distributing this software. What specifically
harmful effect could this action directly cause???



>
>  *>If the owners have not abandoned it they they could be found, since they can
>  *>not be found we can reasonably construe that they have abandoned it.
>
> Hmmm.. Perfect example of circular reasoning.  You really just talk the talk,
> don't you, Coot?  You don't actually know how to think, do you?
>
> Ask Howard Katz, Willie Yeo, Mitchell Spector and others if these authors can not
> be found.  If you must, ask Dorktor Tom.  HE claims to find them all the time!
> But can never offer any evidence that he's not just lying about it.
>
> Oh.  I should mention that I like fishing, Cooter.  As long as you stay on the
> line, I'll play you and make you look silly.  ;)
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat