RMT, you just POST TOO MUCH. So that I don’t actually get to read ALL your explanations about “FACTS†and not something related to the TOPIC of this thread.
Perhaps I need to post "too much" because there is SO MUCH of your material that is silly (as in non-scientific and/or non-factual). Whether it is "too much" or not, you cannot ignore that I am addressing the facts. Facts which you do not seem to want to address. Would you like me to list the issues from the last few posts that you have not addressed?
I “define†or “mean†facts as something related to this topic.
Well, just to be crystal clear,
HERE is the definition of fact:
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
YES EXACTY. So there you can understand that he tried to make Hercules BEFORE 1998. Why didn’t he make it fully at that TIME?
There could be many guesses or suppositions as to why he did not make it fully at that TIME. However, based on the above definition, THOSE GUESSES OR SUPPOSITIONS WOULD NOT BE FACTS! GET IT?
You seem to want to state as a FACT that the reason he did not complete it back then was because he needed the IBM 5100, but that is NOT fact. I can give you an "Occam's Razor" guess, that is supported by Bowler's own words, which may be another reason he didn't complete it: He was too busy with other work to do "free work". And the words from Bowler that support this are more words that you did not put into boldface type. Here they are:
most of the work was done during a nine month period in 1999 while I was between contracts.
You see, now THIS is how we refer to FACTS. It is a FACT that he mentioned he was between contracts. Thus, this is an implication that he HAD MORE TIME ON HIS HANDS TO WORK THE PROBLEM. I see NOWHERE in Bowler's statements where he EVER implies he needed an IBM 5100 (given to him by a Time Traveling Titor, no less) to do the job! YOU, my friend, are not sticking to the FACTS!
But the actual WORK was DONE in 1999
You do not know, for a fact, what part of the work was done before 1998 and what part during/after 1998. The only FACT you have from his quote is that "most of the work was done during a nine month period in 1999". You are STRETCHING the FACTS to suit your interpretation, and that is NOT SCIENTIFIC! (You like how I am sticking to the two issues you hold so dear, SCIENCE and FACTS?) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
You should notice that I am tired of explaining issues to you.
And you should notice how many NON-FACTS you employ, and how you ignore them when I point out to you that they are NON-FACTS and NON-SCIENTIFIC.
If you take his statements and show it to a OS/360 Y2K programmer, he will tell you HOW vague Roger Bowler was in explaining “HOW†he fixed Y2K.
Exactly, he was vague. And so therefore you CANNOT come to any FACTUAL conclusions about HOW he did it. And to claim (or interpret, whichever word you choose) that he simply HAD to have an IBM 5100 is both NON-FACTUAL and NON-SCIENTIFIC. All coming from you, the person who berates others for not sticking to FACTS and SCIENCE. Don't you find that ironic about yourself?
Learning assembler wouldn’t help him fix Y2K.
You do not know that for a FACT, now do you? In FACT, it certainly could help you fix Y2K if you were able to find where in the assembly code the computer program was referencing the clock/calendar functions, and extend their precision to use four digits in the year! So again, you are not using FACTS.
The only way(I guess) he could have done is he got the s/360 emulator from the “tweaked†IBM 5100 and duplicated how the instructions are read and processed and then converted to the IBM Legacy instruction set. He can easily get to the source and PATCH it.
Right there...stop righ there and read what I have put into bold. Please dispute (if you can) these FACTS about your statement above:
1) Since it is your GUESS then there is no guarantee that it is FACTUAL. In FACT, your guess could be totally wrong, especially if there is no supporting evidence for its veracity.
2) You have not EVER established as FACT that this was THE ONLY WAY he could have done it. Indeed, I know for a FACT that there is at least one other way (See my discussions with MEM).
But this is just my interpretation, it CANNOT be PPROVED CORRECT
I seem to recall when I once gave my own interpretation of something ("sentiments" was the word involved) that you berated me for NOT STICKING TO SCIENCE. So why is it OK for you to not stick to science and facts, but then you must hold others to a higher standard? Please address this, as this is the part of your logical behavior that bothers me.
Now I made THAT bold and clear, don’t POST TOO MUCH stuff to DEBUNK it.
There is no need for me to debunk that statement, for you are making it clear that you are NOT relying upon either FACTS or SCIENCE to come to your conclusion. That has certainly been established all throughout this conversation with you.
Your interpretation is:
A) NOT based on FACTS.
B) NOT based on SCIENCE.
C) NOT the ONLY way that Bowler could have reverse engineered System 360 HW to build an emulator.
Give up yet?
RMT
