🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 19:10:11 GMT, in@the.sig (E. Faubion) wrote:

>>This doesn't even begin to explain the mathematics that you use in your
>>calculations. 
>Newton's Three Laws of Motion and derivatives.

Ooh, ahh, high school stuff.  But lets see the calculations in your fine
program.  Show us that you're applying the laws of physics appropriately in
your models and that your calculations contain no errors.

>>*I* could write program that takes inputs and spits out numbers,
>>but that doesn't mean that the computations are correct and that the results
>>are what they claim to be.
>
>Then do it.

What kind of response was that?  We want to see that you know what you claim to
know, and see the logic embodied in your calculations.  So show them to us.

>>Where's the source code --
>In a safe place. 

No doubt, but why point us to a readme file with absolutely no useful content
w/regard to your interpretation of the laws of physics and your calculations.
Show us the real stuff.

>>If this is freeware, then why hide the source? 
>For the same reason lots of people don't release the code.  

I take it that you don't know the reason.  Companies with commercial software
products don't release source (usually) because that's giving away the product
and usually trade secrets as well.  Your program is non-commercial and freely
copyable.  Plus your erroneous postings on this group make your claims to
accuracy dubious at best.  Let's see the source code and expose your vast
knowledge to the world.  If you won't, you're quite clearly hiding it from the
review of people who really know physics and math.

>>And where are the "reviews?"
>L&O magazine, 1/95

That's it, just one?  Their web site (http://www.lawandordermag.com/ ) is
useless (broken links and no archives earlier than this Spring).

Your program isn't in their software listings either.  I take it the review
came back "Not Recommended."

Cheers,
Eric