Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Antoon Pardon Date : Mon Sep 26 2005 11:06 am Op 2005-09-23, William schreef : > "Antoon Pardon" wrote in message > news:slrndj78s4.2ko.apardon@rcpc42.vub.ac.be... >> Op 2005-09-22, William schreef : >> > "Antoon Pardon" wrote in message >> > news:slrndj2082.4tm.apardon@rcpc42.vub.ac.be... >> > >> >> > Having studied the history of invention as a hobby for decades >> >> > I haven't find too many inventors who were motivated by glory. >> >> > Most sought out profits from the get-go even if the spark was >> >> > to solve a problem they were personally experiencing. Certainly, >> >> > very few inventions became practical except in pursuit of >> >> > profits. >> >> >> >> I'm not convinced, once an invention became pratical, it would >> >> result in profits, and I understand that people would then >> >> also prefer that it ears them money. That doesn't mean it >> >> became practical in pursuit of profits. >> > >> > So you are basically saying you have this belief system which >> > you prefer over the evidence. Do you work for the Bush >> > administration? >> >> What evidence? > > History - there for anyone to read and interpret. You show no evidence. You only assert there is evidence. So I find your statement that I prefer my belief system over the evidence at least premature. >> For the moment I have only your say so about the history >> of inventions. > > Correct, but I haven't kept the evidence secret, so any > thing I say on the subject can be checked and evaluated. May be I missed them, but I have seen no reference from you. So you don't seem to have revealed where I can check this evidence you speak of. >> Not that I think you are lying. but historical finding >> do tend to get interpreted in a way that confirms the >> examiners ideas. > > How often have you confirmed this, or is this something > you take on faith? I have on a number of occasions, studied a number of historical subjects, where the authors of different books come to different conclusions about the intentions or responsibility based on more or less the same evidence. > I have two friends and each believes the media is highly > biased; one thinks it's a liberal bias, the other thinks > it's a conservative bias. They are absolutely convinced > they are right despite the troubling contradiction. Indeed and it is my experience we all more or less suffer from this same problem. > This is easier than digging into the stories, and cross- > checking to see if there really is some truth in any > given story and determining if bias really exists. And if you are biased against the media being biased, you may easier come to the conclusion that there is no bias instead of accepting the media is biased. > Back to the point, though. If you read enough history, > by enough authors, the biases tend to cancel out and > persistent biases can be detected by working your way > up the chain of evidence yourself. Maybe, but that doesn't stop one's own bias in accepting some ideas more easily then others. If even the professionals can be biased, why not the amateurs? >> If you want to classify this as having a believe system >> that is prefered over evidece, I think that says more about >> you than about me. > > When you actually have studied the evidence, you can > form a valid opinion of it. Until then, it is just a > belief. You might be right or wrong, but that's no > better than a guess. Well but until I actually studied this evidence and form a valid opinion, you can't expect me to be convinced, can you? -- Antoon Pardon .