Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:22:07 -0500 (EST) From: hoek@freenet.hamilton.on.ca To: no@one.org Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, ben@narcissus.ml.org, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RMS's view on dynamic linking Message-ID: <199702232322.SAA06618@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In Email, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> wrote: > > This, of course, proves what we have all known --- namely that > > quantum physics is not science. Now that it's not a science we > > can start making some of those excess English majors study it and > > save our precious Math majors for real work. > > Either you are a physicist and you are joking, or you are a non-physicist > and you are ignorant of the facts. I'm certainly not a physicist, however I was not ignorant of facts you felt necessary to quote me. It was, in fact, a joke. I neglected to add a smiley, but I will do so now, hopefully clearing up any remaining confusion. --==> :-) <==-- My intent was to show that Jordan's argument about sociology not being a science (due to the fact that it cannot make predictions about individuals but must limit itself to groups). The comparison between quantum physics and sociology was meant to be strictly in their use of statistics. I am doubtful that the issue of sociology (and political science) being scientifical is worth debate. That is why I did not continue beyond my single paragraph on the subject. > > All of this suggests that the funding situation of FreeBSD is > > more stable and less dependant on the whims of individual > > developers than your [Jordan's] comet analogy suggests. > > My point is that the project will steady-state at a given energy > level. If John did leave, why should we be satisfied with *one* > someone stepping up to the task? I believe I was actually agreeing with you [Terry]. I did so because I felt I had in hand a couple pieces of evidence worthy of mention but (until now) deprived thereof. I think this wasn't clear because I intentionally chose to state my conclusion as a refutation of the comet analogy rather than as a concordance with your steady-state theories. -- tIM...HOEk "Oops." -- tIM...HOEk "Oops."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702232322.SAA06618>