Graham Banks wrote:Contribution does not solely refer to giving freely, which is what you're inferring.
Scientists make a contribution to society's knowledge with their discoveries, whether they are paid for conducting their research or not.
You just made two contradictory statements. Scientists share by definition, since their work is required to be validated by peers. Yet you offer this analogy to support the idea of "not sharing information."
Graham Banks wrote:Chess grandmasters make a contribution to chess, whether they are paid or unpaid.
Only when they offer game analysis for free.
Graham Banks wrote:Some think that church ministers make a contribution to society. Are they all unpaid too?
Remuneration for services rendered means the services were not a contribution, unless the service rendered is far more valuable than the remuneration.
Graham Banks wrote:Regardless, this is a debate that should probably happen elsewhere.
Dann Corbit wrote:
You can cook a fine dinner and feed it to me.
You can show me how to cook it myself.
You can show me how to cook it and then feed me.
You can teach me how to teach others to cook it.
All are contributions related to a meal. I think we have something analogous here.
The first one is not a contribution if he also served you the check.
By your standards it's only a contribution if they received "no compensation" for it. But compensation can take many forms so if someone does something they "enjoy", then they are receiving compensation and by your definition it ceases to become a true contribution.
The fallacy is that you view everything from a materialistic viewpoint. You don't understand that in any kind of transaction, whether it involves money or not, both parties can come out the winner. I might help the neighbor shovel his sidewalk without expecting anything in return except feeling good about myself and knowing that I helped someone. I received compensation for my act and it may be as simple as a pat on the back.
Your basic conceptual model of monetary transactions is that it is a zero sum game (assuming neither party was cheated), that the buyer loses something but gains something in return and that it is of exactly equal value. But that is not how economics work. And this same principle applies whether physical money is involved or it's a transaction of some other kind - such as social interactions.
So when the government requires me to buy health insurance, it's forcing me to obtain a contribution from the insurer? I don't think so, Don.
If I buy a music recording that I like, I have received a contribution from the artist? I don't think so, Don.
Contribution is not the right word for what you are describing about Rybka.
Don wrote:Otherwise, by your narrow minded view anyone who works for a living is not making any kind of contribution to society, unless they are being cheated out of pay and making less than they deserve.
My view simply follows the meaning of the word "contribution". Your use of the word is manifestly at odds with all the primary, secondary and tertiary definitions of the word. To then call these definitions narrow-minded is simply an abuse of the word "contribution" on your part. I don't know how wide a mind must be to divorce that word from common usage and make it apply to selling something for more than one paid or worked for it.
Last edited by mhull on Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Graham Banks wrote:Contribution does not solely refer to giving freely, which is what you're inferring.
Scientists make a contribution to society's knowledge with their discoveries, whether they are paid for conducting their research or not.
You just made two contradictory statements. Scientists share by definition, since their work is required to be validated by peers. Yet you offer this analogy to support the idea of "not sharing information."
Graham Banks wrote:Chess grandmasters make a contribution to chess, whether they are paid or unpaid.
Only when they offer game analysis for free.
Graham Banks wrote:Some think that church ministers make a contribution to society. Are they all unpaid too?
Remuneration for services rendered means the services were not a contribution, unless the service rendered is far more valuable than the remuneration.
Which is always the case - otherwise only a fool would pay. If I hire a grandmaster to analyze my games it's because I am getting something of value for something of less value. The Grandmaster feels exactly the same from his point of view, he thinks he is getting more back that he is putting in, otherwise he would be wasting his time.
So why not hire an expert instead of a grandmaster? He will analyze my games too and I can pay him a lot less. You won't do that because you believe it's not a very good deal - even though you may get a much cheaper price, nobody values the chess advice from a relatively weak player if they can get a Grandmasters opinion.
If you don't think it works that way, then stop paying for the services of the garbage collector and those who do this chores most of us hate doing. Deliver your own mail, dispose of your own garbage, treat yourself when you get sick, don't let your children go to school because the teachers get payed, and don't travel on any paved roads because the workers who paved it were payed.
Graham Banks wrote:Regardless, this is a debate that should probably happen elsewhere.
Dann Corbit wrote:I am not aware of any commercial chess engine for which the source code is publicly available.
So Vas is not at all different from Johan de Koning or Amir Ban or Stefan Meyer-Kahlen or ...
Of course. And they are not giving you a contribution when you pay for their products. You are giving them a contribution.
Michaelangelo got payed for the statue of David and the (*cough* Mona Lisa -- sorry Leonardo --> insert "The Last Judgment" here .)
Other statues and famous ceilings also brought him compensation which was judged as fair at the time.
Does this mean that Michaelangelo made no contribution to society?
Don wrote:Which is always the case - otherwise only a fool would pay. If I hire a grandmaster to analyze my games it's because I am getting something of value for something of less value. The Grandmaster feels exactly the same from his point of view, he thinks he is getting more back that he is putting in, otherwise he would be wasting his time.
But that's backwards. If you feel that you took someone to the cleaners in a transaction, you are calling that a contribution, which is nonsensical.
IOW, you have to assume that Vas feels his work is worth a lot more that what he's selling it for. So he either feels ripped off or beneficent. Objectively speaking, you can't make that call, and maybe he can't either. Either way, if money is involved, but art is concealed, it's not a contribution to the art, since the art remains secret.
Dann Corbit wrote:
.............Michaelangelo got payed for the statue of David and the Mona Lisa.
..............
The "Mona Lisa" was by Leonardo Da Vinci....
But yes, Michelangelo got payed for many, many artistic works, and yes, his contribution has been great. But his work is available to everybody's eyes.
Dann Corbit wrote:
You can cook a fine dinner and feed it to me.
You can show me how to cook it myself.
You can show me how to cook it and then feed me.
You can teach me how to teach others to cook it.
All are contributions related to a meal. I think we have something analogous here.
The first one is not a contribution if he also served you the check.
By your standards it's only a contribution if they received "no compensation" for it. But compensation can take many forms so if someone does something they "enjoy", then they are receiving compensation and by your definition it ceases to become a true contribution.
The fallacy is that you view everything from a materialistic viewpoint. You don't understand that in any kind of transaction, whether it involves money or not, both parties can come out the winner. I might help the neighbor shovel his sidewalk without expecting anything in return except feeling good about myself and knowing that I helped someone. I received compensation for my act and it may be as simple as a pat on the back.
Your basic conceptual model of monetary transactions is that it is a zero sum game (assuming neither party was cheated), that the buyer loses something but gains something in return and that it is of exactly equal value. But that is not how economics work. And this same principle applies whether physical money is involved or it's a transaction of some other kind - such as social interactions.
So when the government requires me to buy health insurance, it's forcing me to obtain a contribution from the insurer? I don't think so, Don.
I NEVER said it was not possible to be involved in a bad transaction. Sometime we are forced into bad transactions against our will. Most insurances that you purchase are negative expectancy betting games where the odds are stacked against you. On average the average person will pay more to the insurance companies than he will get back. If it were not this way then the insurance companies would be losing money and would be out of business. On the other hand you at their mercy because the insurance companies negotiate prices better than most of us do - so they pay less than you would in the cases where they have to pay. Not to mentioned the value of "peace of mind", that intangible thing that varies in value enormously depending on the personality of the individual.
From a purely mathematical and monetary point of view, insurance is a bad deal - but when other things are taken into consideration it is much less clear.
If I buy a music recording that I like, I have received a contribution from the artist? I don't think so, Don.
Yes. I have my own favorite group since I was a kid and I have received far more enjoyment and pleasure from listening to their music than I ever payed the recording companies.
Most musical artists actually ENJOY what they do and some try hard to produce music that they know their listeners will enjoy. Your attitude is that their work is done only for monetary compensation is jaded and sad. Their reasons go way beyond just money in their pockets.
Perhaps I am an optimist, but I think most people who go to work to make a living enjoy the work they do, take pride in it, and try to make a difference - a contribution. This makes me wonder about your own attitude towards work as you see it solely as a selfish act.
Contribution is not the right word for what you are describing about Rybka.
Don wrote:Otherwise, by your narrow minded view anyone who works for a living is not making any kind of contribution to society, unless they are being cheated out of pay and making less than they deserve.
My view simply follows the meaning of the word "contribution". Your use of the word is manifestly at odds with all the primary, secondary and tertiary definitions of the word. To then call these definitions narrow-minded is simply an abuse of the word "contribution" on your part. I don't know how wide a mind must be to divorce that word from common usage and make it apply to selling something for more than one paid or worked for it.
Dann Corbit wrote:I am not aware of any commercial chess engine for which the source code is publicly available.
So Vas is not at all different from Johan de Koning or Amir Ban or Stefan Meyer-Kahlen or ...
Of course. And they are not giving you a contribution when you pay for their products. You are giving them a contribution.
Michaelangelo got payed for the statue of David and the (*cough* Mona Lisa -- sorry Leonardo --> insert "The Last Judgment" here .)
Other statues and famous ceilings also brought him compensation which was judged as fair at the time.
Does this mean that Michaelangelo made no contribution to society?
The same goes for GPL code. A person can get paid for coding open source work. And his code is made available for all to learn from and benefit, even though he is paid. That's a contribution. Secrets aren't contributions.
