Why Was CCC Created?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

What ever the true reason for CCC. Thank you Rolf and all the others that help to create it.

Best,
Gerold.

The only contribution Rolf gave to CCC was that everybody wanted to get rid of him on rgccc. He used to make long, senseless posts (even worse than today) and attacked personally several nice people like Ed Schroder, who even sued him.
....Sure, East Timor

Rolf is still confused and continues to talk rubbish....nothing new under the sun....
Dr.D

[gerold]

What ever the true reason for CCC. Thank you Rolf and all the others that help to create it.

Best,
Gerold.

The only contribution Rolf gave to CCC was that everybody wanted to get rid of him on rgccc. He used to make long, senseless posts (even worse than today) and attacked personally several nice people like Ed Schroder, who even sued him.
....Sure, East Timor

It looks like a lot of people find Rolf's post very interesting.
He started a post 2-3 weeks ago that lasted more than a week
and generated almost 5k replies. His contribution is more than
most who post here. People also talk about Pablo's block chess.
Yet he has over 5k replies to date on his latest post.

Best,
Gerold.

[arturo100]

What ever the true reason for CCC. Thank you Rolf and all the others that help to create it.

Best,
Gerold.

The only contribution Rolf gave to CCC was that everybody wanted to get rid of him on rgccc. He used to make long, senseless posts (even worse than today) and attacked personally several nice people like Ed Schroder, who even sued him.
....Sure, East Timor

It looks like a lot of people find Rolf's post very interesting.
He started a post 2-3 weeks ago that lasted more than a week
and generated almost 5k replies. His contribution is more than
most who post here. People also talk about Pablo's block chess.
Yet he has over 5k replies to date on his latest post.

Best,
Gerold.

He always got several replies to his posts, the main reason being that everyone wanted to make sure to thoroughly insult him whenever he did.

[Rolf]

Ed Schroder, who even sued him.

It's beyond reasonable thhinking why sueing someone without evidence is seen as a good idea.

Actually we have the same scenario with the CCC and its actual hate campaign against Vas Rybka. They campaign allegedly having evidence but refuse to sue because they know of the sad outcome of e.g. Ed in the earlier days. Even with sort of evidence the outcome is unclear. The charter of CCC normally forbids such libel. But why respecting it if it's so much fun to chase a scapegoat from anonymity.

So, this is the solution for the question why CCC was founded out of rgcc in usenet. Here it's possible to defamate the resident scapegoat without that this same scapegoat could strike back, which was a very annoying possibility on usenet. So that people who thought they owned extra rights felt deceived through the democratic openess of usenet. Only after this became clear on CCC when the same special people tried to practice their extra rights on CCC, it was thanks to democrats like Sam Hull who reveiled the mechanism of extra righting. They left after losing their status after being caught in the act of such a wrondoing. Being educated by the famous Popper dict that democracy is only possible in open groups and societies and that this means in the USA the truth will always re-appear even if it was hidden beneath stones.

[K I Hyams]

It's beyond reasonable thhinking why sueing someone without evidence is seen as a good idea.

Yes and the other reason why it would be stupid to sue someone is when they have good evidence that you are guilty. Perhaps that is one reason why Rajlich has not sued Bob, Zach and BB, who have evidence that Rybka is Fruity.

Actually we have the same scenario with the CCC and its actual hate campaign against Vas Rybka. They campaign allegedly having evidence but refuse to sue because they know of the sad outcome of e.g. Ed in the earlier days.

They can't sue Rajlich. You can only sue for damages if you think that you have been damaged.

Ed could (and did) sue you because he thought that you had damaged him unfairly.
You could not sue Ed because he did not damage you.

Rajlich could sue Bob, Zach and BB if he thought they had damaged him unfairly.
Bob Zach and BB could not sue Rajlich because they did not damage him.

You claim that Bob, Zach and BB, who can't sue Rajlich, are behaving badly by not doing so but Rajlich, who can sue Bob, Zach and BB is a gentleman by not doing so. That is inconsistent.

All of that has been explained to you already.

[Laskos]

All of that has been explained to you already. Why do you keep on posting the same rubbish?

Can everybody just ignore Rolf, with his Neural Network seemingly human posts? I saw even Bob replying sometimes to Rolf's 2 synapses-free axons output.

Kai

[bob]

Ed Schroder, who even sued him.

It's beyond reasonable thhinking why sueing someone without evidence is seen as a good idea.

Actually we have the same scenario with the CCC and its actual hate campaign against Vas Rybka. They campaign allegedly having evidence but refuse to sue because they know of the sad outcome of e.g. Ed in the earlier days. Even with sort of evidence the outcome is unclear. The charter of CCC normally forbids such libel. But why respecting it if it's so much fun to chase a scapegoat from anonymity.

So, this is the solution for the question why CCC was founded out of rgcc in usenet. Here it's possible to defamate the resident scapegoat without that this same scapegoat could strike back, which was a very annoying possibility on usenet. So that people who thought they owned extra rights felt deceived through the democratic openess of usenet. Only after this became clear on CCC when the same special people tried to practice their extra rights on CCC, it was thanks to democrats like Sam Hull who reveiled the mechanism of extra righting. They left after losing their status after being caught in the act of such a wrondoing. Being educated by the famous Popper dict that democracy is only possible in open groups and societies and that this means in the USA the truth will always re-appear even if it was hidden beneath stones.

If you are going to post, either post factually or go somewhere else. I can't sue because I have no legal standing to do so. It isn't because I am afraid I would lose, or I am afraid we do not have enough data. It is because I simply have "no legal standing".

It really is that simple. So stop insinuating something else. It is plainly and simply false...

As far as "the truth re-appearing" it would seem you are correct with respect to fruit/rybka, because it does keep coming back. There _is_ truth in the accusations...

[Rolf]

Ed Schroder, who even sued him.

It's beyond reasonable thhinking why sueing someone without evidence is seen as a good idea.

Actually we have the same scenario with the CCC and its actual hate campaign against Vas Rybka. They campaign allegedly having evidence but refuse to sue because they know of the sad outcome of e.g. Ed in the earlier days. Even with sort of evidence the outcome is unclear. The charter of CCC normally forbids such libel. But why respecting it if it's so much fun to chase a scapegoat from anonymity.

So, this is the solution for the question why CCC was founded out of rgcc in usenet. Here it's possible to defamate the resident scapegoat without that this same scapegoat could strike back, which was a very annoying possibility on usenet. So that people who thought they owned extra rights felt deceived through the democratic openess of usenet. Only after this became clear on CCC when the same special people tried to practice their extra rights on CCC, it was thanks to democrats like Sam Hull who reveiled the mechanism of extra righting. They left after losing their status after being caught in the act of such a wrondoing. Being educated by the famous Popper dict that democracy is only possible in open groups and societies and that this means in the USA the truth will always re-appear even if it was hidden beneath stones.

If you are going to post, either post factually or go somewhere else. I can't sue because I have no legal standing to do so. It isn't because I am afraid I would lose, or I am afraid we do not have enough data. It is because I simply have "no legal standing".

It really is that simple. So stop insinuating something else. It is plainly and simply false...

As far as "the truth re-appearing" it would seem you are correct with respect to fruit/rybka, because it does keep coming back. There _is_ truth in the accusations...

Bob, I hope you are not making the same mistake as the others here. I dont argue on the base of a damage you couldnt claim, this is British Law and perhaps even American Law too.

But I argue on a different basis. If your argument with the GPL is correct, then it is a violation under the condition that you could really prove it and it's relevant in a legal sense. Then you wouldnt have to sue because you have a damage but because you claim a legal violation in the field of computerchess.

Why else did you always (for 5 years now) tell such negative accusations against Rybka? If it wouldnt matter in a legal sense from your perspective? I repeat, you never had the intention to sue but you are sure there is a violation of legal points and therefore you repeated your attacks or negative talk. Is that correct? Then my question why did you do it?

Ok, if you can prove me wrong in my description of what happened then please correct me. But to insinuate I wouldnt have the facts straight is not so nice. To the contrary, I still find it a somewhat false attitude to accuse someone of a legal wrong, but you dont give it to the authorities.

I learned in our justice system in Europe, more the Continent not British Isles, that if no sue is being undertaken and for all no judge has given a verdict, then someone is completely innocent even if you always continue to blame the guy. This is a basic of European Law. You cant have it both ways. You dont sue someone but still call him guilty of a wrongdoing. He is and remains innocent.

And if Fabien sues Vas and cant win a court trial, then Vas remains perfectly innocent.

[benstoker]

Ed Schroder, who even sued him.

It's beyond reasonable thhinking why sueing someone without evidence is seen as a good idea.

Actually we have the same scenario with the CCC and its actual hate campaign against Vas Rybka. They campaign allegedly having evidence but refuse to sue because they know of the sad outcome of e.g. Ed in the earlier days. Even with sort of evidence the outcome is unclear. The charter of CCC normally forbids such libel. But why respecting it if it's so much fun to chase a scapegoat from anonymity.

So, this is the solution for the question why CCC was founded out of rgcc in usenet. Here it's possible to defamate the resident scapegoat without that this same scapegoat could strike back, which was a very annoying possibility on usenet. So that people who thought they owned extra rights felt deceived through the democratic openess of usenet. Only after this became clear on CCC when the same special people tried to practice their extra rights on CCC, it was thanks to democrats like Sam Hull who reveiled the mechanism of extra righting. They left after losing their status after being caught in the act of such a wrondoing. Being educated by the famous Popper dict that democracy is only possible in open groups and societies and that this means in the USA the truth will always re-appear even if it was hidden beneath stones.

If you are going to post, either post factually or go somewhere else. I can't sue because I have no legal standing to do so. It isn't because I am afraid I would lose, or I am afraid we do not have enough data. It is because I simply have "no legal standing".

It really is that simple. So stop insinuating something else. It is plainly and simply false...

As far as "the truth re-appearing" it would seem you are correct with respect to fruit/rybka, because it does keep coming back. There _is_ truth in the accusations...

Dr. Hyatt,

Is there some place on the web you could point me to for reading about where to draw that demarcation between not-okay-to-copy and okay-to-copy? I'd like to read some learned articles on this so that I can better understand the arguments being made here.

I just don't think I understand the deeper aspects of intellectual property in the context of computer chess programming and how that applies to this fruit/rybka/ippo controversy. Maybe you can give me an assignment, so to speak. I would guess that computer science students at UAB address these issues at some point in their education. What book or article do they read about these IP issues?

For instance, am I free to implement literally every single idea contained in Crafty, nothing more and nothing less, and write my prog in Cobol, and call it Rafty? I hear ideas are not copyrighted, but routines are. Does that mean all I got to do is simply rename variables and break up Crafty functions into separate parts and combine other functions into a single function, or whatever, -- you know the drill, change while loops into for loops, etc.

If I could somehow really rewrite in C, same as Crafty, every single routine in Crafty so that it looks different, but is still identical to Crafty as far as the so-called "Ideas", is that okay? Heck, I would combine all of the code into a large, single .c and .h file pair.

Or, why not just run it through some automatic code obfuscator that is sophisticated enough to map all functions into obscure logical equivalents?

Every single static value and function could easily be rewritten as some trivial logical equivalent. If rooks are 500 in Crafty, in Rafty, could I just do "rook = (250 + 250)" -- ditto for every other static value. As I understand it, PSTs can be expressed in static values (correct term?) or via a formula that computes the values. Therefore, in my Rafty program, could I just take all of Crafty's PSTs and express them in formula routines (or the other way around as the case may be)?

If I study it, parse it, and eventually come to understand the Ippo* spaghetti code, am I perfectly free to implement the "Ideas" in my own prog? Or submit them to Stockfish? I hear it said that I can discover "Ideas" by disassembling a program. That's very confusing to me. May I disassemble Rybka 4, discover the "ideas" and implement them in my Rafty?

Aside from the issue of being mealy-mouthed or outright lying about the issue (a separate offense), if I understand it right, I could literally take every single "idea" in Stockfish and so long as I somehow write different routines to implement them, I'm good to go. Since I haven't "copied code", and instead just "taken ideas", I don't have to contribute my code improvements back per GPL, and I can roll my own binary, give it a name, and start selling it. That is the state of my confusion. What do or did you read to come to understand the do's and don'ts here? Thx.

[Edit: another thought: in theory, a computer algorithm that performs some calculation can be written in a virtually infinite number of ways. I have an "idea" to write an algorithm that computes the orbits of Saturn's moons. It is based on a set of mathematical formulas discovered by a guy named Newton. I can write a program to do the calculations in a number of different ways, but they must always carry out the calculation of the same math formula and get the same result. Now, logically, I know that if-then conditionals can be rewritten as and-or sentences, etc. And conditionals and loops can be written in numerous ways in C to still calculate the same exact thing. I know I could theoretically write a program that merely takes C code and randomly rewrites all of the code to logical equivalents, changes all conditionals to and-or and vise-versa; is sophisticated enough to rewrite the multiple layers of code into logical equivalents. If I have that program, is that my license to kill? I don't have to do a damn thing now; I can't be accused of copying code now because I have code that is completely rewritten in every way, though it is logically equivalent.]

[Roger Brown]

......

And if Fabien sues Vas and cant win a court trial, then Vas remains perfectly innocent.

Hello Rolf,

I a willing to admit that I do not understand Dr. Hyatt's enduring belief that you are actually paying any attention to what he or anyone writes.

I may become the most unpopluar person on Talkchess for suggesting this to a Talkchess icon such as yourself but really, if you do not start practicing some self control then I am going to simply start deleting your posts since I do not believe that editing them would improve them.

Later.