On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:44:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
> > that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it."
> It's totally inadequate evidence, but ne
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:44:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
> > that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it."
> It's totally inadequate evidence, but ne
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
> that's evidence that there aren
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
> that's evidence that there aren
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it." The lack of evidence
is due to the fact that (almos
On 2004-01-08 15:23:30 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
It's just not conclusive evidence.
I think that may be an irrational view.
Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer.
Not for long. The bunny
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it." The lack of evidence
is due to the fact that (almos
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:37:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is
> >> not
> >> evidence of absence.
> > Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind
> > the word, and what will actually happen.
>
> Not just
On 2004-01-08 15:23:30 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
It's just not conclusive evidence.
I think that may be an irrational view.
Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer.
Not for long. The bunny would
On 2004-01-08 13:47:45 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each
package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if
it
can stay, if it has made progress, etc.
Feel free to comment/adopt my suggested pla
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:37:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is
> >> not
> >> evidence of absence.
> > Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind
> > the word, and what will actually happen.
>
> Not just
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:11:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= "in
> another subthread" for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
> (such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
Ok.
> On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PR
On 2004-01-08 13:47:45 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each
package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if
it
can stay, if it has made progress, etc.
Feel free to comment/adopt my suggested plan. I
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:11:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= "in
> another subthread" for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
> (such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
Ok.
> On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PR
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= "in
another subthread" for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well, sure. The only problem with that [...]
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= "in
another subthread" for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well, sure. The only problem with that [...]
Yep,
16 matches
Mail list logo
