Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Ol'coot
>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>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.  ;)
>  *>>
>
> Hmmm... ignored this point, hmmm?
>
>  *>>  *>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...
>
> LOL!  Then make a name for yourself, and show HOW!  Mathematicians and scientists
> around the globe wait at your very feet for the gems of knowledge that
> demonstrate his error!
>

He reasoning ultimately became circular in the
same way that the Liar Paradox folds in upon itself.

>
> Or this could just be another bald assertion backed up by ... nothing. ;)
>
> *snip*
>
>  *>>  *>>
>  *>>  *>> 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?  ;)
>  *>>
>
> Hmm... Ignored it yet again.  ;)
>
>  *>>  *>> 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.  ;)
>  *>>
>
> Run Away!  Run Away!
>
>  *snip*
>
>  *>> 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.
>
> Uh... It's kind of impossible to reject something that's hardwired in, dude.
>
> And I can make stupid assertions too... (although it makes me feel sorta dirty).
> How about:
>
> You refuse to see this as stealing because your dogma of "If I want it, I should
> get it" 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.
>
> Of COURSE it's simplistic, Cooter... If you take something that doesn't belong to
> you, it's stealing.  Duh!
>

Yet this is simplistic... It omits certain crucial details...
According to this simplistic rule garbage men "steal"
your garbage. They take it, it doesn't belong to them...

>
>  *>In order for any wrong to occur, there must be a harmful effect.
>
> OK.  I have many of the programs currently on asimov.  In their original
> packages.  Their market value is reduced by asimov offering them illegally,
> damaging their resale value.
>
> There.  I've demonstrated a harmful effect.  Now admit that it's wrong to steal.
> (Betcha you ignore THIS too)
>

This would be a sound example of actual stealing.
This example would NOT apply if regardless of
their placement on asimov, they could not be
sold because they are 100-fold below the current
level of functionality. You place any 1998 Mac
software on asimov, and you will be hearing about
it. You place any 1981 Apple Dos 3.3 software
and you will not hear about it, except from
nit pickers whom only know the letter-of-the-law,
and pay no regard to the spirit (intention) of-the-law.

>
>  *>In the case of stealing the harmful effect is the loss of something of value
>  *>by its legitimate owners.
>
> Yeah... I'm a legitimate owner.  Not the copyright owner, but I will defend their

The copyright owner is the only legitimate owner.

>
> rights along with mine.  If and when I sell this software, I don't want sewage
> sucking scum ruining the market. ;)
>
>  *>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.
>
> Wrong.  If I sell Choplifter for a small amount of money, it's still viable to
> me.  And if retro computing takes off in the future, the copyright holders may
> want to market their efforts at that time.  YOU certainly can't predict the
> future.  ;)
>
>  *>Secondly the owners have so thoroughly abandoned their software that no one
>  *>can find them.
>
> Hmmm... Willie Yeo and Howard Katz and allies are finding these owners all the
> time!  But they're few in number and busy with lives of their own.  Why don't you
> join us in tracking these folks down rather than just rationalizing the theft of
> their efforts because you don't want to put forth the effort?

It fine and good and right to search for any find the owners.
It not fine and right and good to make sure that every possible
copy is fully deleted in the mean time. This is what would
result in the default letter-of-the-law approach.

>
>
>  *>Abandonment relinquishes ownership. So not only is their no value, there are
>  *>no owners.
>
> Read the copyright laws at that URL I gave you.  The word abandonment does not
> appear ANYWHERE in that Code.  Stick with what you do well.  I have no idea what

It is throughout patent law... I am not talking
letter-of-the-law, I am talking the moral
(intent) of the law. The moral intent of copyright
law is to protect the ownership rights of original
works, for a limited time so that the authors
can be compensated for their efforts.

>
> that may be since you've not demonstrated anything worthwhile here, and leave the
> legalities to the lawyers.  ;)
>
>  *>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.
>
> Well, it's annoying to have to sort through duplicate posts.  Not life
> threatening or anything, but if you keep doing it, it labels you as a moron.  I
> agree with that guy.  ;)
>
>  *>He kept complaining that I posted stuff to the programmer group that did not
>  *>belong there.
>
> Yeah?  Duh?
>
>  *>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.
>
> No, it just proved that folks will answer stuff even if it's not in the
> appropriate newsgroup.  ;)

No, in this case I was utterly proven to be
correct, because although they were willing
to post to the wrong group (as you suggest),
the were unwilling to post to the right group.
My point was to get answers you MUST
post to the wrong groups... Following
netiquette fails to get the required results
ignoring netiquette gets the results, thus
netiquette is WRONG on this point.

>
>
> *snip*
>
>  *>>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>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.  ;)
>  *>>
>
> Ah... Ignoring this point as well, hmmm?  ;)
>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>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/
>  *>>
>
> And ignoring yet another point...
>
> Keep at it, Cooter...
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat