On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:26:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > > Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole > > You're not making any sense. > Because it's logical equivalence, not numerical equality. a^b * a^c >= a^(b+c) is true, but a^b * a^c <= a^(b+c) isn't true? Or are the rules different for ideas that conform to Peano's axioms, than ideas that prefer modus ponens? > I agree that the dissident test + the practical objections imply that > there is probably no way to close any of the things called "the ASP > loophole". No, you don't agree because that's not what I'm saying. The whole point of this is to get rid of "probably"s and work out what is _actually the case_. > I do not agree with the claim that "the dissident test is just another > way of saying that the only ways your allowed to close the ASP > loophole are ones which are practically unreasonable." That's nice. Disprove it. Unfortunately it looks like you don't have enough of a handle on logical argument to even understand what that means. Yeesh. > Rather, the dissident test arises [...] It doesn't matter how it "arises". It matters what it *implies*. In particular, that it limits the ways of solving the ASP loophole through licensing to those that are technically objectionable. > Moreover, the <= direction suggests that the only reason for the > dissident test would be to keep "the ASP loophole" open. Nonsense. There was _no_ value judgement implied, and the only conclusion to be drawn is that *dropping* the dissident test is one of exactly two ways of allowing people to *close* the ASP loophole. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature