Source Code for OS?
olcott
of the apple II OS? If not original source code,
what about disassembled code? I would especially
like to have DOS 3.3, and the patches and fixes
in source code form.
David Empson
The Quality Software book "Beneath Apple DOS" has a commented breakdown
of the DOS 3.3 code. It isn't a full disassembly, but it is good enough
that you can easily generate one.
Beneath Apple DOS might still be available new from Byte Works
(http://www.byteworks.org).
There was also Beneath Apple ProDOS, which had three supplements
containing corresponding commented breakdowns of ProDOS versions as far
as ProDOS-8 1.3. I've heard that these supplements are now out of
stock, but I'd check with Byte Works for confirmation. The base book
doesn't contain any internal code details, only interface documentation
and underlying hardware details.
Pascal
During my Apple ][ years, I got a floppy disk
with a DOS 3.3 source code (disassembled by
hand!).
But I don't have all my Apple disks any more
to retrieve that source code, unfortunately.
--
| Pascal
| http://www.club-internet.fr/perso/pascalc
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/IT/G d-(++$) s+:+ a C++ US P+>++ L+>+++ E-
W+++ N++ o? K? w--(++$) !O M- V PS++ !PE Y+ !PGP
t+@ 5- X R++ tv+ b+++ DI++ D+@ G e+++ h-- r+++ y++@
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
olcott
I haven't had a chance to read them yet.
I would like to get such a complete listing,
that I can re-assemble it, and it will be
byte-for-byte identical. I would also
like to get the source-code for the "other"
Apple Dos 3.3 versions... DavidDOS, etc.
Cturley2
which was released to an old and well know Apple II programmer, which I was
given in his personal collective of Apple II disks and zip archive disks.
It even contains comments from both Microsoft and Apple in it :)
Contact me by email if you want it in ShrinkIt archive file format.
Cheers,
Tom
Matthew Russotto
Cturley2 <ctur...@aol.com> wrote:
>I have the original and official src. code for DOS 3.3
>which was released to an old and well know Apple II programmer, which I was
>given in his personal collective of Apple II disks and zip archive disks.
>It even contains comments from both Microsoft and Apple in it :)
Why would it have comments from Microsoft in it? Applesoft was a
Microsoft product, DOS wasn't. There was another company involved in
DOS but it wasn't Microsoft.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Roy and/or Janet Miller
Are you back now?
Roy
Cturley2
<<What's the status on WordPerfect Tom?
Are you back now?>>
And I reply, the answers to both of those can be found SOMEWHERE in this web
site contents:
Cheers,
Tom
PS :) Same status as before - last time we talked about such things.
Cturley2
Applesoft from Apple Computer and not for DOS 3.3.
However, the DOS 3.3 sorce codes and complete information as in 'DOS ANANTOMY'
is already available for public access and download from the following URL.
ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.net/pub/apple_II/images/utility/disk_utils/dos_anat
omy.zip
Cheers,
Tom
Quantum_Cat
Your absence of forever the last 4 months was refreshing!
*>A reply on my original post was correct.
Gee... caught in another falsehood as soon as you rear your ugly mug, hmmm?
*>The src. codes I have are indeed for Applesoft from Apple Computer and not
*>for DOS 3.3.
Well, I forgive you, Dorktor. I know someone of your feeblemindedness could
hardly be expected to tell the difference between the two, let alone know when it
was time to change his own adult diaper..
*>However, the DOS 3.3 sorce codes and complete information as in 'DOS
Sorce codes? Like in sorcery? I didn't know you were involved in that kind of
stuff, Dorktor... I suppose you go to the same coven convention as Imbecilicon.
;)
*>ANANTOMY' is already available for public access and download from the
*>following URL.
Anantomy? Better remove your head from that nasty flesh crevice, Tom. ;)
But of course, they still retain the stench of your theft. Sadly, the change in
your location hasn't improved your moral sense any.
*>ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.net/pub/apple_II/utility/disk_utils/dos_anatomy.zip
*>Cheers, Tom
Well... Now I can go back to wishing that those rolling blackouts start
accumulating in your area. ;)
Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
Quantum_Cat
olcott
might get you sent to Hell? It does not matter
that you may "believe" otherwise, Truth is
under no compulsion to obey your opinion.
When you express hatred toward another,
you risk your soul...
Quantum_Cat
*>Do you know that hatefulness (such as yours) might get you sent to Hell?
Kitties don't go to Hell. ;)
*>It does not matter that you may "believe" otherwise, Truth is under no
*>compulsion to obey your opinion.
Hey! I agree! Thanks for sharing your opinion. ;)
*>When you express hatred toward another, you risk your soul...
I'll take my chances.
So, how does the theft of all this software (source for all the Apple II OS's)
fit into your little hellbound tirade? Are you wearing HellRepellant Underwear
when you request property that doesn't belong to you?
I'd really like to know. ;)
Paul Schlyter
> Do you know that hatefulness (such as yours) might get you sent
> to Hell? It does not matter that you may "believe" otherwise,
> Truth is under no compulsion to obey your opinion. When you
> express hatred toward another, you risk your soul...
eternal pain in hell?
Truth is under no compulsion to obey anyone's opinion, of course.
Not even your opinion -- i.e. YOU MAY BE WRONG! Perhaps YOU will be
sent to hell, e.g. because you didn't believe in the sacred eternal
truth of Allah? Who knows? You won't know for sure until you die;
until then you can only believe this or that!
(No I'm not a muslim. I'm an agnostic who finds it both sad and
amusing that people who believe in different religions can be
prepared to condemn each other to hell while being prepared to die
for their own belief. This fact is a lesson about man's grasp of the
truth... perhaps a little more humbleness would be in order? No?)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
olcott
I am new to apples, thus they could have
done the same... If nothing else hatefulness
creates Hell rigfht here and now for both
the hater, and the hated.
olcott
creates Hell right here and now for both the Hater
and the Hated.
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> Hatefulness (if nothing else) [thus analytical truth]
LOL
>
> creates Hell right here and now for both the Hater
> and the Hated.
<Snicker> More amatuer theology.
Roy
Greg Buchner
wrote:
> IBM published their BIOS source code...
> I am new to apples, thus they could have
> done the same...
If IBM publishes their BIOS, it was after a company reverse engineered
it and won the lawsuit from IBM that tried to stop them. IBM fought
cloning in the beginning and later realized they could do nothing about
it.
Greg B.
--
Note: To e-mail me, replace nobody with gjb
I don't get junk e-mail and intend to keep it that way.
If you want to send me spam, go jump off a cliff and make
the world a nicer place.
Dennis Jenkins
>
> In article <3A790033...@qwest.net>, olcott <olc...@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
> > IBM published their BIOS source code...
> > I am new to apples, thus they could have
> > done the same...
>
> If IBM publishes their BIOS, it was after a company reverse engineered
> it and won the lawsuit from IBM that tried to stop them. IBM fought
> cloning in the beginning and later realized they could do nothing about
> it.
Phoenix or award or someone reversed engineered the bios in 1984? But I
am a copy of the IBM-XT technical ref manual, and it has the full bios
source cose listing (commented). I'd have to check, but I think the
copyright date of the book was 1981 or 1982. Not sure...
--
den...@usb.com Universal Savings Bank.
The three most dangerous things are a programmer with a soldering
iron, a manager who codes, and a user who gets ideas.
olcott
olcott
truth is... You are even ignorant of the degree
of your own ignorance... (Ignorance Squared).
Dennis Jenkins
olcott wrote:
>
> I have a copy of this same book, that's how I know.
What is the publish/copyright date. Heck, post the ISBN too!
Dennis Jenkins
Ok guys, this is getting ridiculous. You have different opinions,
beliefs, etc... We are supposed to be mature adults (or young adults,
as your mileage may vary). Why keep bickering?
Stop it or I'll post rot-13 encoded 6502 assembler! :)
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> You would not even know what analytical
> truth is...
My undergraduate degree is in Liberal Arts, with concentrations in
History and Philosophy. Analytic truth is that which to deny is to
involve a contradiction. Such is not the case in your statement, in part
because your statement was, a) a single word, "Hate fulness", or b) a
parenthetical sentence fragment "(if nothing else)". Even combined they
are not analytical truth, nor is the full sentence in which you embedded
your assertion. In most of your posts, you make sweeping statements
which you assume to true, and which others have, at times, shown that
are, at least, debatable. To which you respond as follows:
> You are even ignorant of the degree
> of your own ignorance... (Ignorance Squared).
Well, this is on the level of "so is your mother." A sophomore in high
school should be more mature than that.
Paul S. and I certainly have some differing opinions/beliefs; after all
he's announced that he's an agnostic, and I hold to historic Reformed
Theology (hence, I believe in a real hell), but, we do agree on at least
one thing, to quote Paul, "Truth is under no compulsion to obey anyone's
opinion, of course. Not even your opinion -- i.e. YOU MAY BE WRONG!"
Which is one very good reason to restrain your comments, and buttress
your arguments with facts, instead of strongly stated opinion.
This "sub thread" began with your attacking QC's post, which you
obviously consider hateful. But, it didn't take you long to be as
hateful as you accused QC of being. Perhaps you should consider the
damage to your own soul from your hateful words.
BTW, not that it matters, in addition to my full accredited
undergraduate degree (Middle Atlantic States Association), I have a
three year graduate degree in Theology, which has both regional
(Southern States Association) and professional (ATS) accreditation (for
our non US friends, that's as accredited as an American degree can get.)
So in reference to your "Ignorance Squared" comment, I think these facts
show both your hate fulness, and your own ignorance. O
f course, I am ignorant, of many things, like Swedish, nuclear
engineering, and sub atomic physics, but then, those are some of many
things that we weren't discussing.
Roy
Dennis Jenkins
> History and Philosophy. Analytic truth is that which to deny is to
Cool. I took lots of philosophy in college. I regret that I don't
remember much... I do remember Goodel's theorem though. That was cool.
But who/why did you get involved with Apple II's?
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
> > My undergraduate degree is in Liberal Arts, with concentrations in
> > History and Philosophy. Analytic truth is that which to deny is to
>
> Cool. I took lots of philosophy in college. I regret that I don't
> remember much...
Well, it's been 16 years for me, and I haven't done much in the field
since, too many real life distractions.
> I do remember Goodel's theorem though. That was cool.
>
> But who/why did you get involved with Apple II's?
I started to take a course in BASIC programming, using the II+. I had to
drop the course (too many costs, too many uses for too few dollars, like
the four children demanding food three times a day :-)
Then, in `93 I got a IIe, Profile HD, 2 Disk IIs, a ton of software, Apple
DMP, manuals, etc, as well as the Beagle Bros Big Tip book for $50 from our
local Police force. I gave this to my sons to play with, and my elder boy
took to programming like a fish to water. I took to it like rock ;-)
Since then, I've managed to collect too many II+s, one B&H with B&H Disk
IIs, a several IIes (including 2 platinum IIes) a Woz IIGS, a ROM 03 in a
Woz case, about 400 disks, 8' of shelf space full of programs, 15' of
books, and 24' of II mags. Needless to say, my wife isn't too pleased with
me at times, and a member of our local club keeps telling me, "You have too
many toys." What do you think?
Roy
olcott
It does not seem to have an ISBN,
the IBM part number is 1502237
olcott
understand analytical truth, Because
of your background, you should set
yourself as an example of love one's
enemies...
Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
Greg Buchner
wrote:
> I have a copy of this same book, that's how I know.
>
OK, but it still doesn't change the fact that IBM did fight cloning.
Companies went out and cloned the IBM's without IBM's help or
permission, and suddenly everyone expects Apple to just give the
stuff away.
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> Good job you are one of the few that
> understand analytical truth, Because
> of your background, you should set
> yourself as an example of love one's
> enemies...
I don't have any enemies, just people I like a whole lot less that others.
Of course, there are people I disagree with, sometimes rather strongly.
But no enemies.
Roy
Cturley2
access and download in the Asimov ftp site - incoming folder.
New Apple II ROM image files are also there with many other new archives for
use by Apple II users.
ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.net/pub/apple_II/incoming/
Special thanks go to the 202 Alliance -- Glen, Hank, Steve, Jim, Mike, Joe,
Ross,
George, Jeff and Ernest.
The GS/OS 6.01 source codes should be available there in a fairly large zip
archive file within the next few weeks.
In December, 2000 I obtained the rights to Word Perfect for the IIgs and Apple
IIe versions from it's past owner and copyright holder -- Larry Epstein and I
hereby release both into the public domain. All of the Apple II and IIgs
Softdisks rights have been bought by an Apple II supporter also. I expect they
too will soon be made available in the Asimov incoming folder as freeware.
"Analytic truth is that which to deny is to cool to calibrate."
Cheers,
Tom
Paul Schlyter
> olcott wrote:
>
>> You would not even know what analytical
>> truth is... You are even ignorant of the degree
>> of your own ignorance... (Ignorance Squared).
>> Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> Hatefulness (if nothing else) [thus analytical truth]
>>> LOL
>>>>
>>>> creates Hell right here and now for both the Hater
>>>> and the Hated.
>>> <Snicker> More amatuer theology.
>>> Roy
>
> Ok guys, this is getting ridiculous. You have different opinions,
> beliefs, etc... We are supposed to be mature adults (or young adults,
> as your mileage may vary). Why keep bickering?
must become like a small child. THAT's why people are bickering here
like small children... :-))))
> Stop it or I'll post rot-13 encoded 6502 assembler! :)
YBBC: YQN $P08R,K
OCY YBBC
PZC $NQOR
OAR YBBC
OCY RKVG
NQP #1
RKVG: EGF
:-)
Paul Schlyter
Roy and/or Janet Miller <mil...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
> because your statement was, a) a single word, "Hate fulness",
> Paul S. and I certainly have some differing opinions/beliefs; after all
> he's announced that he's an agnostic, and I hold to historic Reformed
> Theology (hence, I believe in a real hell),
then, here on Earth. For instance at the fronts of WW 1, or in the
concentration camps of the Nazi's, or during the homocides in Rwanda
or in the Balkan during the last decade, or in Europe during the
"Black Death" some centuries ago, or after that meteorite fall
some 65 million years ago which killed the dionsaurs.
There's absolutely no need to invent a theological hell -- mankind is
perfectly able to create a "good enough" hell already here on Earth!
Of course this is just my belief, and I may be wrong. And if I am
wrong, I'll probably end up in hell for that....
BTW what kind of hell do you believe in? Something like Dante's
hell, where being burnt at the stake by an earthly fire would feel
just like a tickle compared to the fires in hell? Or do you consider
hell to be merely "absence of God"? If the latter, then I and all
other non-believers are already living in hell....
Roy and/or Janet Miller
>
> In December, 2000 I obtained the rights to Word Perfect for the IIgs and Apple
> IIe versions from it's past owner and copyright holder -- Larry Epstein and I
> hereby release both into the public domain.
Two questions Tom:
1) Were you able to get the source code
2) Can you verify for us here that you are the copyright holder? Scan the bill of
sale, or something? Thanks in advance.
BTW - I checked out that site, and saw nothing that answered the questions I had
asked of you.
Roy
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> In article <3A79B1A6...@inetnebr.com>,
> Roy and/or Janet Miller <mil...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>
> > because your statement was, a) a single word, "Hate fulness",
>
> To me that looks like two words though.... <evil grin>
Sigh, yeah, my spell checker did that, and I was too distracted to pay
attention to it.
>
>
> > Paul S. and I certainly have some differing opinions/beliefs; after all
> > he's announced that he's an agnostic, and I hold to historic Reformed
> > Theology (hence, I believe in a real hell),
>
> Well I too believe in a real hell: it exists here and there, now and
> then, here on Earth. For instance at the fronts of WW 1, or in the
> concentration camps of the Nazi's, or during the homocides in Rwanda
> or in the Balkan during the last decade, or in Europe during the
> "Black Death" some centuries ago, or after that meteorite fall
> some 65 million years ago which killed the dionsaurs.
That isn't what "hell" is. Those are horrors.
>
>
> There's absolutely no need to invent a theological hell
and who do you think "invented" a "theological hell?" You might be surprised.
> -- mankind is
> perfectly able to create a "good enough" hell already here on Earth!
>
> Of course this is just my belief, and I may be wrong. And if I am
> wrong, I'll probably end up in hell for that....
>
>
> BTW what kind of hell do you believe in?
Sheol/Hades is a place for the incarceration of the immaterial portion of
humans. Hence, though real, it does not necessarily have a physical location.
Gehenna/Lake of Fire is a place of incarceration of resurrected humans.
Hence, it does have a physical location (where I have no idea) Biblical data
is *very* limited. Heat, darkness, suffering, both physical and nonphysical
is about all that we know, with the exception that it was not created
initially for human beings, but as a punishment for the fallen angels. Dante,
et al, have exercised literary license in their works.
> Something like Dante's
> hell, where being burnt at the stake by an earthly fire would feel
> just like a tickle compared to the fires in hell? Or do you consider
> hell to be merely "absence of God"? If the latter, then I and all
> other non-believers are already living in hell....
Absence from God is part of the nonphysical punishment. And you are right,
fallen humans are, in that sense already living in hell. Nice observation.
Roy
olcott
that is no longer commercially viable (such as dos 3.3)
away, it promotes good will, thus enhances their
remaining product line...
olcott
unrighteous behavior.. Hatefulness fits
this category...
olcott
There is NEVER any excuse for
a righteous person to express hatefulness...
Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
olcott
of belief, an assertion that is analytically true, is
that hatefulness contributes to hell on earth...
olcott
Paul Schlyter
> One thing that is not subject to the possible error
> of belief, an assertion that is analytically true, is
> that hatefulness contributes to hell on earth...
contribute to "Hell on Earth"? Would the world have been a better
place if they instead had let the German Nazi's win that war?
Paul Schlyter
> This also applies to adversaries...
> There is NEVER any excuse for
> a righteous person to express hatefulness...
"I know we ought to love each, and I also know there are people who
don't love their fellow human beings, and I HATE people lie that!"
Paul Schlyter
>
>>> Paul S. and I certainly have some differing opinions/beliefs; after all
>>> he's announced that he's an agnostic, and I hold to historic Reformed
>>> Theology (hence, I believe in a real hell),
>>
>> Well I too believe in a real hell: it exists here and there, now and
>> then, here on Earth. For instance at the fronts of WW 1, or in the
>> concentration camps of the Nazi's, or during the homocides in Rwanda
>> or in the Balkan during the last decade, or in Europe during the
>> "Black Death" some centuries ago, or after that meteorite fall
>> some 65 million years ago which killed the dionsaurs.
>
> That isn't what "hell" is. Those are horrors.
perceived as the ultimate of horrors, in order to scare people into
obedience?
>> There's absolutely no need to invent a theological hell
>
> and who do you think "invented" a "theological hell?" You might be surprised.
or John, or maybe someone else. Or perhaps Christianity inherited
the concept of hell from Judaism? I'm not that familiar with the
Torah, so I don't really know...
>> -- mankind is
>> perfectly able to create a "good enough" hell already here on Earth!
>>
>> Of course this is just my belief, and I may be wrong. And if I am
>> wrong, I'll probably end up in hell for that....
>>
>>
>> BTW what kind of hell do you believe in?
>
> Sheol/Hades is a place for the incarceration of the immaterial portion of
> humans. Hence, though real, it does not necessarily have a physical location.
> Gehenna/Lake of Fire is a place of incarceration of resurrected humans.
> Hence, it does have a physical location (where I have no idea) Biblical data
> is *very* limited. Heat, darkness, suffering, both physical and nonphysical
> is about all that we know, with the exception that it was not created
> initially for human beings, but as a punishment for the fallen angels. Dante,
> et al, have exercised literary license in their works.
>> Something like Dante's hell, where being burnt at the stake by an
>> earthly fire would feel just like a tickle compared to the fires
>> in hell? Or do you consider hell to be merely "absence of God"?
>> If the latter, then I and all other non-believers are already
>> living in hell....
>
> Absence from God is part of the nonphysical punishment. And you
> are right, fallen humans are, in that sense already living in hell.
> Nice observation.
think I prefer it over heaven, where you're just supposed to sit on
some cloud in a blue sky and play the harp in eternity.... :-))))
Dennis Jenkins
> > Stop it or I'll post rot-13 encoded 6502 assembler! :)
>
> OK:
>
> YBBC: YQN $P08R,K
> OCY YBBC
> PZC $NQOR
> OAR YBBC
> OCY RKVG
> NQP #1
> RKVG: EGF
>
And what does that do? I see the reference to the data in latch on a
slot 6 floppy drive, but what is at $ADBE? I assume it is in the global
memory space of DOS 3.3 (ok, all variables in DOS 3.3 are globals, but
who's counting, right?) Why the ADC #1?
LOOP: LDA $C08E,X
BPL LOOP
CMP $ADBE
BNE LOOP
BPL EXIT
ADC #1
EXIT: RTS
olcott
that was demonstrated here, using mean and
spiteful hate filled words, merely because of
disagreement over using obsolete software,
and defending one's life from those that would
take it.
Roy and/or Janet Miller
are wrong, and, to those who grant me my presuppositions, I can prove it. To the
rest, well, we have to back farther, and deal with who's frame of reference best
fits the world as it is. Of course, the problem there is that since there are no
brute facts, each deals with the world through their frame of reference.
Roy
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> There is a difference between the hatefulness
> that was demonstrated here, using mean and
> spiteful hate filled words, merely because of
> disagreement over using obsolete software,
> and defending one's life from those that would
> take it.
And since you used mean and spiteful hate filled words, I'm still waiting for
your repentance.
Roy
olcott
utltimately counts, and that is the creators...
olcott
there is no anger or spitefulness behind them.
If you are indeed a minister, and I believe
that you are, you should be the light of
the world, setting the same example that
Christ himself set, expressing loving kindness
towards even those who killed him.
Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
Quantum_Cat
*>I did not... My words were but a warning.
Well, let's just say that warnings about imaginary places just slide right off my
fur. ;)
*>there is no anger or spitefulness behind them.
In a way, that's pretty scary. Tossing threats about without any rancour. Sort
of psychotic if you ask me.
*>If you are indeed a minister, and I believe that you are, you should be the
*>light of the world, setting the same example that Christ himself set,
Hmmm... Trashing the Temple while chasing off that "den of thieves"?
So... Run along, oh Holy Roller, Ol'coot. Steal your software somewhere else.
Begone from the CSA2 Temple!
*>expressing loving kindness towards even those who killed him.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... Consigning them to becoming Extra Crispy for all eternity.
You're whacked, dud.
Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
Quantum_Cat
Paul Schlyter
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> In article <3A7A538F...@qwest.net>, olcott <olc...@qwest.net> wrote:
>>
>>> One thing that is not subject to the possible error
>>> of belief, an assertion that is analytically true, is
>>> that hatefulness contributes to hell on earth...
>>
>> So those who fought Hitler and his troops during WW II, did they
>> contribute to "Hell on Earth"? Would the world have been a better
>> place if they instead had let the German Nazi's win that war?
>
> There is a difference between the hatefulness that was demonstrated
> here, using mean and spiteful hate filled words, merely because of
> disagreement over using obsolete software, and defending one's life
> from those that would take it.
which doesn't contribute to "hell on Earth", i.e. that there are cases
where feelings of hate are fully justified....
Paul Schlyter
> And what does that do? I see the reference to the data in latch on a
> slot 6 floppy drive, but what is at $ADBE?
> I assume it is in the global memory space of DOS 3.3 (ok, all variables
> in DOS 3.3 are globals, but who's counting, right?)
is a memory address with a symbolic name attached to it, however the
initial "$" means the "ADBE" is to be interpreted as a hexadecimal
number, not a symbolic name.
> Why the ADC #1?
Wny not? I thought it looked cute....
The code doesn't do anything useful -- I was just making it up to
have some 6502 assembly ro ROT-13....
> LOOP: LDA $C08E,X
> BPL LOOP
> CMP $ADBE
> BNE LOOP
> BPL EXIT
> ADC #1
> EXIT: RTS
--
Charles Richmond
>
> It is my duty to God to correct woefully
> unrighteous behavior.. Hatefulness fits
> this category...
>
the unrighteous behavior of others??? Perhaps you would like to
remove the *mote* from your own eye first...
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Charles Richmond
>
> In article <3A7A532B...@qwest.net>, olcott <olc...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> > This also applies to adversaries...
> > There is NEVER any excuse for
> > a righteous person to express hatefulness...
>
> Or, to quote "Tom Lehrer" from his 1965 album "That was the year that was":
>
> "I know we ought to love each, and I also know there are people who
> don't love their fellow human beings, and I HATE people lie that!"
>
law-abiding people...
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> BTW what kind of hell do you believe in? Something like Dante's
> hell, where being burnt at the stake by an earthly fire would feel
> just like a tickle compared to the fires in hell? Or do you consider
> hell to be merely "absence of God"? If the latter, then I and all
> other non-believers are already living in hell....
>
Paul Schlyter
Charles Richmond <rich...@ev1.net> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> BTW what kind of hell do you believe in? Something like Dante's
>> hell, where being burnt at the stake by an earthly fire would feel
>> just like a tickle compared to the fires in hell? Or do you consider
>> hell to be merely "absence of God"? If the latter, then I and all
>> other non-believers are already living in hell....
>
> I thought you lived in Sweden...
olcott
the ear of the Roman guard that
was taking him to be killed.
olcott
hateful in doing this...
olcott
that I proposed does not exist, lacking complete
proof that this possibility is not indeed true. Atheists
make the same error of most believers, of jumping to
conclusions. They (as most believers) presume that
their opinions are one and the same thing as truth.
In statistics this is known as a type two statistical
error. Even within mere human nature, hatefulness
reaps hatefulness, and thus often hatefulness is
not worth its price. May you reap fully as you sow
to be corrected from the error of your ways...
ONLY to be corrected, and not for any degree
of vengeance or retribution.
olcott
trying to take my life, with no felling of hatred.
Iff that was my ONLY choice, that is what I
would do. The purpose of Love your enemies
is to destroy the enmity rather than the enemy.
This is the first choice.
olcott
Since belief (and disbelief) is a mind closing
thing, it forms an error of reasoning.
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> There is only one frame of reference that
> utltimately counts, and that is the creators...
A tautology. The problem is, I believe that my conceptual frame is as close to the
Creator's as I can currently get it, given my limited abilities and the effects of sin
in my being. However, I'm smart enough to know that others, with whom I may have
profound differences, have the same belief. Given that A can't be Non A, we both can't
be right. How to demonstrate to others that their conceptional framework is not true
to the world as it is, is the problem. Using the sword, as Islam has done, or torture
and brainwashing as Marxism has done, isn't an option for a Christian, not to say that
some calling themselves Christians haven't tried it. And I've never found an arrogant
attitude to be helpful in that endeavor.
However, this conversation with you and Paul is *WAY* off thread, and I would suggest
to both of you that if you wish to converse, or debate with me, let's do it by email,
rather than by posting to an Apple II newsgroup.
Roy
Roy and/or Janet Miller
Charles Richmond wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> >
> > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >
> > BTW what kind of hell do you believe in? Something like Dante's
> > hell, where being burnt at the stake by an earthly fire would feel
> > just like a tickle compared to the fires in hell? Or do you consider
> > hell to be merely "absence of God"? If the latter, then I and all
> > other non-believers are already living in hell....
> >
> I thought you lived in Sweden...
>
Some Floridians I know would think that Sweden IS hell. :-)
Roy
olcott
I am under an obligation to God, to correct this
error when, and where it occurs. My duty to God
is much higher than my duty to Netiquette.
Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> There was hatefulness demonstrated in this thread.
> I am under an obligation to God, to correct this
> error when, and where it occurs. My duty to God
> is much higher than my duty to Netiquette.
Ok, obviously you must have the last word on the subject. It is also obvious that you don't
understand that good manners is a matter of obedience to God. So this ends my responses on
this subject.
Roy
Quantum_Cat
Sheesh.. How do I get dragged into these things.. ;)
*>It is unreasonable to presume that the possibility that I proposed does not
*>exist, lacking complete proof that this possibility is not indeed true.
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.
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."
The burden of proof rests on your shoulders, Ol'coot. Otherwise, everything that
every moron utters would have to be true until proven false.
I much prefer withholding judgement until sufficient evidence presents itself.
Disbelief as a default makes MUCH more sense. ;)
*> Atheists make the same error of most believers, of jumping to conclusions.
But rational folks understand that humans make mistakes, and we surely know the
most common ones. We can train ourselves into NOT making those silly mistakes
you're falling into so easily. ;)
*>They (as most believers) presume that their opinions are one and the same
*>thing as truth.
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. ;)
*>Even within mere human nature, hatefulness reaps hatefulness, and thus often
*>hatefulness is not worth its price.
But perhaps this time it is. I'm willing to try. ;)
*>May you reap fully as you sow to be corrected from the error of your ways...
*>ONLY to be corrected, and not for any degree of vengeance or retribution.
Cool.... And perhaps you can stop stealing software. It's not moral to take
someones property, intellectual or not, without their permission.
I don't foresee you doing any time for your trangressions, but it certainly makes
you look like a hippocrite spouting morallistic judgments. ;)
That loser Dorktor Tom is a lost cause. WAY too much drug use in his past.
He'll keep stealing and lying until he shuffles off to that stinky compost pile
in the sky.
There may still be hope for you. ;)
Rubywand
>
> The source codes for Applesoft, DOS 3.3 and ProDOS are now available for public
> access and download in the Asimov ftp site - incoming folder.
>
> New Apple II ROM image files are also there with many other new archives for
> use by Apple II users.
>
> ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.net/pub/apple_II/incoming/
>
> Special thanks go to the 202 Alliance -- Glen, Hank, Steve, Jim, Mike, Joe,
> Ross, George, Jeff and Ernest.
>
> The GS/OS 6.01 source codes should be available there in a fairly large zip
> archive file within the next few weeks.
>
> In December, 2000 I obtained the rights to Word Perfect for the IIgs and Apple
> IIe versions from it's past owner and copyright holder -- Larry Epstein and I
> hereby release both into the public domain. All of the Apple II and IIgs
> Softdisks rights have been bought by an Apple II supporter also. I expect they
> too will soon be made available in the Asimov incoming folder as freeware.
>
> "Analytic truth is that which to deny is to cool to calibrate."
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
Very cool, indeed (and thanks!)
The Applesoft source will be nice to have.
Downloaded all of the 202 Alliance stuff, too. It seems to include bunches of
Softside programs which have not been available for download before-- at least not
from the net. Lots of the games are ones I've never seen before.
Can hardly believe that someone is finally going to make the Sys 6.0.1 source
available. That should be a big help to programmers.
Then, there's your release of Word Perfect into the public domain and, maybe,
someone will do the same for Softdisk?! So, like, how much longer do you figure
you'll be "dropped out" of II computing?
Rubywand
olcott
someone in their hatefulness, then
this case of "good manners" is
unrighteousness.
olcott
is better at theology, because one is
a professional (minister). Christ
himself was an amateur, (not paid
for what he did).
olcott
Quantum_Cat wrote:
> Hiya, Ol'coot...
>
> Sheesh.. How do I get dragged into these things.. ;)
>
> *>It is unreasonable to presume that the possibility that I proposed does not
> *>exist, lacking complete proof that this possibility is not indeed true.
>
> 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. 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.
Although this leaqves many unaswered questions, it
NEVER leaves one with an incorrect answer.
>
> 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."
>
> The burden of proof rests on your shoulders, Ol'coot. Otherwise, everything that
> every moron utters would have to be true until proven false.
>
> I much prefer withholding judgement until sufficient evidence presents itself.
> Disbelief as a default makes MUCH more sense. ;)
>
You are not withholding judgment.
You have already decided. You
have decided that its worth the
risk of (seemingly improbable)
Hell, for the right to be mean and nasty.
>
> *> Atheists make the same error of most believers, of jumping to conclusions.
>
> But rational folks understand that humans make mistakes, and we surely know the
> most common ones. We can train ourselves into NOT making those silly mistakes
> you're falling into so easily. ;)
>
> *>They (as most believers) presume that their opinions are one and the same
> *>thing as truth.
>
> 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.
>
> *>Even within mere human nature, hatefulness reaps hatefulness, and thus often
> *>hatefulness is not worth its price.
>
> But perhaps this time it is. I'm willing to try. ;)
>
> *>May you reap fully as you sow to be corrected from the error of your ways...
> *>ONLY to be corrected, and not for any degree of vengeance or retribution.
>
> 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. If you examine patent law,
you will realize that owners are only allowed
ownership for the benefit of society. An owner
does not have the moral right to make sure that
their creation is wasted.
LumiTech
2/3/01 07:55:
> May you reap fully as you sow
> to be corrected from the error of your ways...
...and vice-a-versa too.
LumiTech
quantum...@cotse.com wrote on 2/3/01 12:13:
> Following YOUR logic, you must believe that there's an invisible Pink
> AllPowerful
> Unicorn in my basement.
You mean .... there's not? ;-)
olcott
hard to sow kindness and mercy
in everything that I do, and say.
Cturley2
<<how much longer do you figure
you'll be "dropped out" of II computing?>>
I'm just an observer at this point with an occasional
post when I see a value and need for it.
Cheers,
Tom
Paul Schlyter
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> In article <3A7ADC85...@qwest.net>, olcott <olc...@qwest.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <3A7A538F...@qwest.net>, olcott <olc...@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One thing that is not subject to the possible error
>>>>> of belief, an assertion that is analytically true, is
>>>>> that hatefulness contributes to hell on earth...
>>>>
>>>> So those who fought Hitler and his troops during WW II, did they
>>>> contribute to "Hell on Earth"? Would the world have been a better
>>>> place if they instead had let the German Nazi's win that war?
>>>
>>> There is a difference between the hatefulness that was demonstrated
>>> here, using mean and spiteful hate filled words, merely because of
>>> disagreement over using obsolete software, and defending one's life
>>> from those that would take it.
>>
>> True ... but then you agre with me that there are some kinds of hatred
>> which doesn't contribute to "hell on Earth", i.e. that there are cases
>> where feelings of hate are fully justified....
>
> no felling of hatred. Iff that was my ONLY choice, that is what I would
> do. The purpose of Love your enemies is to destroy the enmity rather
> than the enemy. This is the first choice.
wasn't Christ's first choice....
Anyway, then you think it's OK to kill others as long as you do it
coldbloodedly, without feelings, or perhaps even with feelings of
joy? That would certainly rule out feelings of hatred....
Paul Schlyter
The other week a schoolkid was shot to death in his school ! This
is an everyday event in the US but here it was unheard of before....
Also: what about those tropical cyclones which from time to time cross
Florida? We NEVER get those in Sweden......
Paul Schlyter
>
>> There is only one frame of reference that
>> utltimately counts, and that is the creators...
>
> A tautology. The problem is, I believe that my conceptual frame is as
> close to the Creator's as I can currently get it, given my limited
> abilities and the effects of sin in my being.
frame of you and of your Creator" ???
> However, I'm smart enough to know that others, with whom I may
> have profound differences, have the same belief.
> Given that A can't be Non A, we both can't be right.
world is more complex than we can imagine. Therefore you shouldn't
rule out the possibility that A actually can be Non A, even though
human minds would certainly have a hard time to grasp that.
> How to demonstrate to others that their conceptional framework is not
> true to the world as it is, is the problem.
that your conceptional framework is not true to the world as it is.
I mean, if other humans can be wrong, why can't you be wrong?
> Using the sword, as Islam has done, or torture and brainwashing as
> Marxism has done, isn't an option for a Christian,
their crusades) and torture and brainwashing (in e.g. the
inquisition), and they may very well have inspired Muslims and
Marxists to later do the same! The name of the game is the same in
all three cases: to gain, and maintain, political power. It's
well-known that power corrupts, and you're making a mistake in
believing Christians are immune to such corruption: they too are
sinful humans, just like anyone else - right?
The Islamic world of today is pretty similar to the Christian
world in medieveal times: back then the Church was in power,
fundamentalism was the rule rather than the exception, and it
was your duty as a citizen to be a Christian who visited the
church every sunday - and you were punished if you didn't
fullfill these duties.
> not to say that some calling themselves Christians haven't tried it.
Christians". Well, we can use the same terminology on Muslims and
Marxists: if they use sword and/ord torture they're not "real
Muslims" or "real Marxists" but merely corrupted power-hungry
people, using Marxism, Islam or Christianity as a disguise, depending
on what's most fashionable in their time and their part of the world!
I think you'll agree that it is VERY UNFAIR to compare non-corrupt
Christians with corrupt Moslems or corrupt Marxists. Why not turn
the tables and compare non-corrupt Moslems or non-corrupt Marxists
with copprupt Christians? Try THAT for a change -- you'll quickly
see how unfair that it. Then open your eyes and see that your way
is just as unfair.
BTW did you ever read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" ?
> And I've never found an arrogant attitude to be helpful in that
> endeavor.
Muslims and Marxists: by force you can only scare people, not
convince them. And the brutality by the Christians in earlier
time now strikes back at Christianity, by making a large part of
the formerly Christian world a secularised world.
And it took the Catholic Chuch (which BTW is the largest Christian
Church) some 450 years before they finally oficially admitted how
wrong they acted towards Galileo Galilei !
Roy and/or Janet Miller
discussion.
Roy
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> In article <3A7C3E7D...@inetnebr.com>,
> Roy and/or Janet Miller <mil...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>
> > Charles Richmond wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> >> I thought you lived in Sweden...
> >
> > Some Floridians I know would think that Sweden IS hell. :-)
>
> Well, we are actually importing hell piece by piece from the U.S. !!!
> The other week a schoolkid was shot to death in his school ! This
> is an everyday event in the US
Hardly. And if you imported it from the US, how did it pass customs?
> but here it was unheard of before....
Just a few short years ago, it was unheard of here too.
>
>
> Also: what about those tropical cyclones which from time to time cross
> Florida? We NEVER get those in Sweden......
Hurricanes? Love `em! Just don't be on the beach when they hit.
Floridians can't take 40 degree (F, not C) weather, how would they handle
your winters?
Roy
olcott
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <3A7C3DE3...@inetnebr.com>,
> Roy and/or Janet Miller <mil...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>
> > olcott wrote:
> >
> >> There is only one frame of reference that
> >> utltimately counts, and that is the creators...
> >
> > A tautology. The problem is, I believe that my conceptual frame is as
> > close to the Creator's as I can currently get it, given my limited
> > abilities and the effects of sin in my being.
>
> Perhaps we could define "sin" as "the difference in the conceptual
> frame of you and of your Creator" ???
>
> > However, I'm smart enough to know that others, with whom I may
> > have profound differences, have the same belief.
>
> Perhaps that's because their "sin's" are different from yours?
>
> > Given that A can't be Non A, we both can't be right.
>
> According to human logic, yes, however humans are fallible and the
> world is more complex than we can imagine. Therefore you shouldn't
> rule out the possibility that A actually can be Non A, even though
> human minds would certainly have a hard time to grasp that.
>
Sorry that's not the way that it works. I know this from a form
of infallible reasoning that I created that derives an exhaustively
complete categorical enumeration of every possibility. "A" can
NEVER be Not "A", at the same time that it is "A". Every
possible attempt to show otherwise results only from a
lack of precision in the linguistic representation of the
potential counterexample.
>
> > How to demonstrate to others that their conceptional framework is not
> > true to the world as it is, is the problem.
>
It is mostly human pride that gets in the way of this.
>
> An equally important problem is how for you to demonstrate to yourself
> that your conceptional framework is not true to the world as it is.
> I mean, if other humans can be wrong, why can't you be wrong?
>
A derived form that I (accurately) call limited subject domain
omniscience. I can know everything that can ever possibly
be known about a very specific subject.
>
> > Using the sword, as Islam has done, or torture and brainwashing as
> > Marxism has done, isn't an option for a Christian,
>
> Utter nonsense! Christians too have used both the sword (in e.g.
> their crusades) and torture and brainwashing (in e.g. the
> inquisition), and they may very well have inspired Muslims and
> Marxists to later do the same! The name of the game is the same in
> all three cases: to gain, and maintain, political power. It's
> well-known that power corrupts, and you're making a mistake in
> believing Christians are immune to such corruption: they too are
> sinful humans, just like anyone else - right?
>
These are examples of corrupt people that merely called
themselves Christian.
>
> The Islamic world of today is pretty similar to the Christian
> world in medieveal times: back then the Church was in power,
> fundamentalism was the rule rather than the exception, and it
> was your duty as a citizen to be a Christian who visited the
> church every sunday - and you were punished if you didn't
> fullfill these duties.
>
> > not to say that some calling themselves Christians haven't tried it.
>
> Aaah, I see -- Christians who use the sword or torture aren't "real
> Christians". Well, we can use the same terminology on Muslims and
> Marxists: if they use sword and/ord torture they're not "real
> Muslims" or "real Marxists" but merely corrupted power-hungry
> people, using Marxism, Islam or Christianity as a disguise, depending
> on what's most fashionable in their time and their part of the world!
>
His assessment can be known to be true, analytically.
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. Note that what
I say here is no mere fallible human opinion, but
can be derived purely analytically, thus not subject
to human error.
>
> I think you'll agree that it is VERY UNFAIR to compare non-corrupt
> Christians with corrupt Moslems or corrupt Marxists. Why not turn
> the tables and compare non-corrupt Moslems or non-corrupt Marxists
> with copprupt Christians? Try THAT for a change -- you'll quickly
> see how unfair that it. Then open your eyes and see that your way
> is just as unfair.
>
Focus ONLY on righteousness, and unrighteousness
will leave (at least you) on its own.
olcott
Paul Schlyter wrote:
My first choice would be to preserve my own life
by expressing love toward those that would take it.
Because of my human limitations, I would not limit
this to my only choice in the preservation of my life.
Cturley2
answering - then asking:
<<Hardly. And if you imported it from the US, how did it pass customs?>>
Answer: Over the Internet - of course :)
<<Floridians can't take 40 degree (F, not C) weather, how would they handle
your winters?>>
Answer: No better than they handled the Presidential election, most likely.
The would simply fix the weather factors to suit their states needs and desires
- with denial, political minipulation and fantasy.
Cheers,
Tom
Quantum_Cat
*>> 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.
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...
*>*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,
Quantum_Cat
Hiya, Coot and Paul.
*>>
*>> > Given that A can't be Non A, we both can't be right.
*>>
*>> According to human logic, yes, however humans are fallible and the
*>> world is more complex than we can imagine. Therefore you shouldn't
*>> rule out the possibility that A actually can be Non A, even though
*>> human minds would certainly have a hard time to grasp that.
*>>
*>Sorry that's not the way that it works.
I'm afraid Paul is correct here, Coot. As an example, I give you light and other
subatomic particles. They possess the properties of particles (photons in the
case of light), and the properties of waves (frequency, wavelength). The
properties you observe are based entirely on the method you use to make your
observations. (photoelectric devices, diffraction gratings).
This demonstrates the "Wave/Particle Duality of Nature".
*>I know this from a form of infallible reasoning that I created that derives
*>an exhaustively complete categorical enumeration of every possibility.
*Snork* ... YOU created this? Wow. Surely you jest. ;)
You know... there's a distinctive "4D Sound" smell about you Cooter... You're not
really one of the Dorktor's alternate personalities are you?
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. ;)
*>"A" can NEVER be Not "A", at the same time that it is "A".
Well, again, I present my example of light in the indeterminant state. But....
I'll grant you that outside of the Quantum Mechanics model (in the Big World),
you're essentially correct.
*>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.
*>>
*>> > How to demonstrate to others that their conceptional framework is not
*>> > true to the world as it is, is the problem.
*>>
Well... Proving a Universal Negative is generally regarded as impossible, unless
you construct your model well enough to attain a contradiction, like Coot
continues to claim can occur in all possibilities.
*>It is mostly human pride that gets in the way of this.
I'd say it was mostly human ignorance.
*>>
*>> An equally important problem is how for you to demonstrate to yourself
*>> that your conceptional framework is not true to the world as it is.
*>> I mean, if other humans can be wrong, why can't you be wrong?
*>>
*>A derived form that I (accurately) call limited subject domain omniscience.
This is SO cute, Coot. ;) Do you impress many folks with this pseudo-
intellectual babble?
*>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..)
*>>
*>> > Using the sword, as Islam has done, or torture and brainwashing as
*>> > Marxism has done, isn't an option for a Christian,
*>>
*>> Utter nonsense! Christians too have used both the sword (in e.g.
*>> their crusades) and torture and brainwashing (in e.g. the
*>> inquisition), and they may very well have inspired Muslims and
*>> Marxists to later do the same! The name of the game is the same in
*>> all three cases: to gain, and maintain, political power. It's
*>> well-known that power corrupts, and you're making a mistake in
*>> believing Christians are immune to such corruption: they too are
*>> sinful humans, just like anyone else - right?
*>>
*>These are examples of corrupt people that merely called themselves
*>Christian.
Gee... the "True Scotsman" fallacy again. You can do better than this, Cooter..
*>>
*>> The Islamic world of today is pretty similar to the Christian
*>> world in medieveal times: back then the Church was in power,
*>> fundamentalism was the rule rather than the exception, and it
*>> was your duty as a citizen to be a Christian who visited the
*>> church every sunday - and you were punished if you didn't
*>> fullfill these duties.
*>>
*>> > not to say that some calling themselves Christians haven't tried it.
*>>
*>> Aaah, I see -- Christians who use the sword or torture aren't "real
*>> Christians". Well, we can use the same terminology on Muslims and
*>> Marxists: if they use sword and/ord torture they're not "real
*>> Muslims" or "real Marxists" but merely corrupted power-hungry
*>> people, using Marxism, Islam or Christianity as a disguise, depending
*>> on what's most fashionable in their time and their part of the world!
*>>
*>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.
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.
*>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. ;)
*>>
*>> I think you'll agree that it is VERY UNFAIR to compare non-corrupt
*>> Christians with corrupt Moslems or corrupt Marxists. Why not turn
*>> the tables and compare non-corrupt Moslems or non-corrupt Marxists
*>> with copprupt Christians? Try THAT for a change -- you'll quickly
*>> see how unfair that it. Then open your eyes and see that your way
*>> is just as unfair.
*>>
*>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?
Quantum_Cat
*><<Floridians can't take 40 degree (F, not C) weather, how would they handle
*>your winters?>>
*>Answer: No better than they handled the Presidential election, most likely.
*>The would simply fix the weather factors to suit their states needs and
*>desires - with denial, political minipulation and fantasy.
Don't try to be clever, Tom. It doesn't suit you. ;)
Still, ... Denial... (I didn't steal this), Fantasy (Freddy, the current owner
gave me permission), Minipulation... uh... no idea what that is. ;) Sounds like
the Dorktor may be Floridian at heart. ;)
Hmmmm..... perhaps you *didn't* lie, Tom. While your fingers still remain here
at csa2, your brain is keeping it's word and remaining absent. ;)
So I guess we need to find something to take care of those sticky fingers of
yours.
*>Cheers, Tom
olcott
Quantum_Cat wrote:
This applies to conceptual knowledge, not, necessarily
to empirical knowledge. Try proving that 3 > 5...
I myself was not sufficiently precise in my own statement.
>
>
> *>"A" can NEVER be Not "A", at the same time that it is "A".
>
> Well, again, I present my example of light in the indeterminant state. But....
> I'll grant you that outside of the Quantum Mechanics model (in the Big World),
> you're essentially correct.
>
> *>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.
>
>
> *>>
> *>> > How to demonstrate to others that their conceptional framework is not
> *>> > true to the world as it is, is the problem.
> *>>
>
> Well... Proving a Universal Negative is generally regarded as impossible, unless
> you construct your model well enough to attain a contradiction, like Coot
> continues to claim can occur in all possibilities.
>
> *>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. 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. In
other words pride causes willful ignorance.
I can't get past this myself so I ignore it.
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...
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.
Comprehension is the ONLY way to truth,
belief (and disbelief) are mere stumbling blocks.
>
> 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.
>
> *>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"...
>
> *>>
> *>> I think you'll agree that it is VERY UNFAIR to compare non-corrupt
> *>> Christians with corrupt Moslems or corrupt Marxists. Why not turn
> *>> the tables and compare non-corrupt Moslems or non-corrupt Marxists
> *>> with copprupt Christians? Try THAT for a change -- you'll quickly
> *>> see how unfair that it. Then open your eyes and see that your way
> *>> is just as unfair.
> *>>
>
> *>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. 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.
olcott
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...
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.
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> Quantum_Cat wrote:
>
> > 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.
Now, I told myself, Roy, don't bother, this guy is so closed minded that it's a waste
of time to post on this stuff anymore. But I'm sorry. This one is too priceless. After
laughing until my sides hurt, and wiping away the tears, all I can say is this is
exactly what I would expect from you olcott. If you can't deal with something, you
ignore it. Obviously, QC, Paul, and I have some real differences, but I'll give them
this: they are thinking, and at least responding to points made for a position, or
against their own. That's what intellectual discussion is all about. But to ignore
something because you don't know how to deal with it is... well, it's what I have come
to expect from you.
>
> 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...
It is also interesting to note that is called the god of this world. But that doesn't
say anything about Christ, who is God incarnate.
>
> Morning Star...
>
> 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.
As such appears to you. Or, in other words, you practice eisegesis, not exegesis. You
read into the text what you wish it to say, not seek to derive out of the text what the
author intended to say. In still other words, you are your own god. Don't expect us to
bow before you.
>
>
> Comprehension is the ONLY way to truth,
> belief (and disbelief) are mere stumbling blocks.
Snort, choke, chortle. Too bad you can't comprehend how ignorant you are.
Roy
Quantum_Cat
*>>
*>> *>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!
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!
*>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)
*>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
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?
*>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
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. ;)
*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...
Cturley2
<<I shall respond via email, and this is not the proper forum for this
discussion.>>
Thanks you so much Roy!!! It would be nice if some subject content still
related to the original subject as listed here - like *** 'Source Code for
OS'*** rather than all the other off subject comments between everybody.
I often wonder why the original subject drifts off into Apple II non-related
issues so consistantly with you and others you debate with over your views of
everything other than Apple II related content.
Cheers,
Tom
PS: Should you seek confirmation on the WP issue and public domain release, try
looking in the Asimov incoming folder for that. It is there.
Quantum_Cat
*>> 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? 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.
*>>
*>> *>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. ;)
*>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?
*>>
*>> *>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. ;)
*>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... ;)
*>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).
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.
*>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. ;)
olcott
and hate filled comments toward you, and I
called him/her on it.
LumiTech
2/4/01 14:28:
You said:
> I always consider every possibility
> until they have been utterly disproven.
...and then later said:
> Taking something that the owners have abandoned
> is not stealing. 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.
I suggest you follow your first statement and consider the possibility that
the owners have not abandoned anything until they have publicly stated so.
You can not "reasonably construe" anything if nothing has been "utterly
disproven."
olcott
has the word of satan mixed in, thus
I reject those portions that seem to
result in contradiction... The ultimate
measure of non truth is contradiction.
Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> PS: Should you seek confirmation on the WP issue and public domain release, try
> looking in the Asimov incoming folder for that. It is there.
Thank you Tom. I shall check it out.
Roy
olcott
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
That is why these possibilities must be considered CATEGORICALLY...
Boiling them down to the smallest set of relevant cateogories makes
this feasible.
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???
olcott
Quantum_Cat wrote:
He reasoning ultimately became circular in the
same way that the Liar Paradox folds in upon itself.
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.
Simon Biber
> 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.
1980s programs can be sold, and are sold regularly. Their value is not in
the level of functionality! It makes no difference whether you get told off
by the copyright owner.
> > Yeah... I'm a legitimate owner. Not the copyright owner, but I will
defend their
>
> The copyright owner is the only legitimate owner.
The copyright owner is the only legitimate owner of the software, true. The
end users are legitimate owners of the media, other paraphernalia, and a
license to use the software. All three of these items have value. It can be
illegal to reduce the value of something owned by someone else. But the
person who uploaded it is much more likely to be convicted for misuse of
copyrighted works than for diluting the value of the license of a particular
end-user.
> 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.
There is a fundamental legal difference between different forms of
Intellectual Property protection. Patents allow one to exercise a level of
control which is in my opinion excessive now that the the US office
regularly allows patents of mathematical processes and software algorithms;
things which should be free. Accordingly there are measures for deprotection
in case of abandonment (you have to be able to contact a patent holder to
negotiate licensing).
> > 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.
This is utterly stupid reasoning. Firstly, you violated Netiquette by
posting the same message in multiple groups separately. A cross-post is
allowable if it is relevant for all groups sent to, and if you send to all
groups simultaneously. This ensures that the whole thread is the same on
both groups, and that if you read the thread in one group your newsreader
marks the other one as read also.
If people replied to your message in the wrong group, then perhaps they saw
it there and didn't bother to tell you it was off-topic. In doing so they
also violated netiquette. This doesn't mean that Netiquette is wrong!
You can't tell us that they were unwilling to post to the right group. They
may not know it exists, or they may not subscribe to it.
Simon.
olcott
of software titles being lost forever...
There are (at this time) very few people
that even care to acquire this stuff, even
for free, its not even worth the time to
download it. If the present trend continues,
eventually none of this stuff will exist in any
form, anywhere.
I have considered the possibility that the
owners do not want their software copied,
and have concluded that if this was true,
they would mention it. In the mean time
they remain free to mention it, thus there
is no cost of erring in copying it in the
mean time because they remain free to
mention it, while the cost of not copying
it could will eventually result in this
material being lost forever.
Often times even failing to make a decision
results in a decision itself, and this decision
has consequences. The case of waiting until
an assertion is utterly disproven until
rejecting this assertion pertained to the
possible cost of losing one's soul to Hell,
against the benefit of the right to say mean
and nasty words. In this case even a very
slight chance of the assertion being true,
was too high a cost to be worth a benefit
that even hurts the beneficiary.
olcott
Simon Biber wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 1980s programs can be sold, and are sold regularly. Their value is not in
Give me one example of any Apple DOs 3.3 software that is
currently being sold by its original copyright owner. It does not
count that some people are selling used copies of this old software,
because these will sell (I myself will buy them) regardless
of their availability for free download, and also in this case
the original copyright owners receive no benefit form this sale
of used software, thus are not in this way harmed by the
free downloads. The ONLY cases that should be (morally)
excluded from free download, are these such examples,
because these examples are the ONLY cases where the
legitimate owner is being harmed. The reasoning is very simple...
No Harm therefore No Wrong.... Most moral dogmatists
can't comprehend this. They see Rule, Violation of Rule
therefore wrong (even if no harm)...
Abandonment utterly loses all ownership rights in patent law...
Abandonment has been defined as narrowly as not promoting
the work on a daily basis, even taking a short break can
be considered abandonment.
>
> > > 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.
>
> This is utterly stupid reasoning. Firstly, you violated Netiquette by
> posting the same message in multiple groups separately. A cross-post is
And then ONLY getting the correct answers on the WRONG
groups. Since the purpose of asking questions is getting answers,
and following netiquette forgoes these answers, therefore
following netiquete is WRONG. If the purpose of asking
questions was to politely obey netiquette, and answers
played no role in the pupose of asking questions, thenn
(then and only then) would netiquette be correct.
>
> allowable if it is relevant for all groups sent to, and if you send to all
> groups simultaneously. This ensures that the whole thread is the same on
> both groups, and that if you read the thread in one group your newsreader
> marks the other one as read also.
>
I was asking apple2 questions (programmer or not)
of both groups (programmer and not).
>
> If people replied to your message in the wrong group, then perhaps they saw
> it there and didn't bother to tell you it was off-topic. In doing so they
NO they ONLY replied to the "wrong" group refusing
to reply to the "right" group. (they did not go to the "right"
group).
>
> also violated netiquette. This doesn't mean that Netiquette is wrong!
>
Sure it does. This narrow minded view of netiquette
is incorrect. (see above)
Paul Schlyter
>>
>> According to human logic, yes, however humans are fallible and the
>> world is more complex than we can imagine. Therefore you shouldn't
>> rule out the possibility that A actually can be Non A, even though
>> human minds would certainly have a hard time to grasp that.
>>
>
> Sorry that's not the way that it works. I know this from a form
> of infallible reasoning that I created that derives an exhaustively
> complete categorical enumeration of every possibility. "A" can
> NEVER be Not "A", at the same time that it is "A". Every
> possible attempt to show otherwise results only from a
> lack of precision in the linguistic representation of the
> potential counterexample.
can't be both, can they?
>>> Using the sword, as Islam has done, or torture and brainwashing as
>>> Marxism has done, isn't an option for a Christian,
>>
>> Utter nonsense! Christians too have used both the sword (in e.g.
>> their crusades) and torture and brainwashing (in e.g. the
>> inquisition), and they may very well have inspired Muslims and
>> Marxists to later do the same! The name of the game is the same in
>> all three cases: to gain, and maintain, political power. It's
>> well-known that power corrupts, and you're making a mistake in
>> believing Christians are immune to such corruption: they too are
>> sinful humans, just like anyone else - right?
>
> These are examples of corrupt people that merely called
> themselves Christian.
is a "corrupt Christian"? I don't consider "I and everyone who
agrees with me are real Christians; the others are corrupt" a
satisfactory answer....
>>> not to say that some calling themselves Christians haven't tried it.
>>
>> Aaah, I see -- Christians who use the sword or torture aren't "real
>> Christians". Well, we can use the same terminology on Muslims and
>> Marxists: if they use sword and/ord torture they're not "real
>> Muslims" or "real Marxists" but merely corrupted power-hungry
>> people, using Marxism, Islam or Christianity as a disguise, depending
>> on what's most fashionable in their time and their part of the world!
>
> His assessment can be known to be true, analytically.
> 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. Note that what
> I say here is no mere fallible human opinion, but
> can be derived purely analytically, thus not subject
> to human error.
33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my
34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I
35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter
and Luke 14:
26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother
own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.... and those crusaders who
travelled out to use their sword on "pagan" people could point to
Matthew 10:34 and say God wanted then to do so.....