Re: Source Code for OS?

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

Hiya, Cooter..

 *>>  *>> 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.

Baloney... He designed a simple symbolic system with variables, a concept of 
statement, rules, format... 

By manipulating this simple system, he showed that there exists a statement P 
which states "there is no proof of P". If P is true, there is no proof of it. If 
P is false, there is a proof that P is true, which is a contradiction. Therefore 
it cannot be determined within the system whether P is true. 

Yes, this is essentially the Liars Paradox, but that's the whole point!  It's 
impossible to to prove or disprove this statement!  I have no idea what brain 
fart "folds in upon itself" means.  And you don't either.  ;)

 *>>
 *>> 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.  ;)
 *>>

Gee... I thought this little Transcendental possibility would be simple for you 
to solve too, Coot.  ;)

 *>>  *>>  *>> 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!
 *>>

Run Far Far Away!

 *>>
 *>>  *>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...

Perhaps you might check in the dictionary as to the definition of "stealing".  
There are lots more details there.  ;)

I'll save you some time.

steal: 1. To take from another without right, authority, or permission, and 
usually in a secret manner.

The rights and authority of the copyright is in the hands of the author.  Not 
yours.  And you don't have permission.

 *>According to this simplistic rule garbage men "steal" your garbage. 

Nope.  I gave them authority.  Of course, I have to pay them too.  ;)

 *>They take it, it doesn't belong to them...

You might try a less sorry analogy.

 *>>
 *>>  *>In order for any wrong to occur, there must be a harmful effect.
 *>>

See the definition above.  The word "harm" isn't part of it.

 *>> 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.

Whoa... Hmm...didn't admit it was wrong to steal even then though.

 *>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 use "if" a lot, then totally ignore that stipulation when it comes time to 
get to your conclusion.  Not a lot of intellectual honesty there Cooter..

Check ebay on occasion.  You'll be surprised what still sells.

 *>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.

I've addressed your "Spirit" fallacy in another post. "Letter follows Spirit", 
not "Spirit corrects Letter".

 *>>
 *>>  *>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.

Well, I'm entitled to make backups of this software for my own use.  While the 
copyright owner controls the distribution, the purchaser still has rights that 
parallel theirs.

 *>>
 *>> rights along with mine.  If and when I sell this software, I don't want
 *>sewage
 *>> sucking scum ruining the market. ;)


 *>> 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.

Don't you know it!  Thanks, Willie, Howard and others!

 *>It not fine and right and good to make sure that every possible copy is
 *>fully deleted in the mean time. 

Huh?  What absurd strawman are you building now?  Most legitimate owners make 
backups.  You don't propose that there exists some Ancient Software Exterminating 
Gestapo out there maliciously formatting disks are you?  ;)

 *>This is what would result in the default letter-of-the-law approach.

It doesn't follow, Cooter.  Backups by legitimate owners (as stipulated in the 
letter-of-the-law) for one are the default.  Lost another point, dude.  ;)

 *>>
 *>>
 *>>  *>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. 

Cooter!  Wake UP!  We're talking about _COPYRIGHT_LAW_ here!  Not _PATENT_LAW_!

You wouldn't try to beat a murder rap by continually spouting traffic code would 
you?

 *>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.

Yeeeaaaahhhh... That's what I've been saying.  Perhaps somethings beginning to 
sink in here.  ;) You just don't like the length of the "limited time".  Poor 
baby!

*snip*

 *>> 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.

I hardly think you can determine that they were "unwilling to post to the right 
group."  If I'm like most folks, I visit csa2 before csa2p, and if I respond to 
something, it's more likely to be in csa2.  Of course, it's after I respond where 
I stumble on those duplicate posts on other groups and get annoyed.

 *>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.

Oh Lordy!  "MUST"?  Then I suggest you post your Apple II questions to any number 
of alt.* groups and then stand back and watch the "results" roll in.  ;D


 *>>  *>>
 *>>  *>>  *>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?  ;)
 *>>

Tisk.  No answer on THIS even yet.  I guess that makes my point as well as 
anything.  ;)


Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat