Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> 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...
>

How your yourself ever actually read it?

>
> 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.  ;)
>


 Why don't you answer this question?
 (the question is immediately above
   is another example of this same error)

The study of English as a mathemtical formalism
makes errors such as the Liar paradox, and
Kurts Incompleteness theory much easier to see.

>
>  *>>
>  *>> 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