A Very Novel Idea Concerning Vas- BE FAIR

[Cubeman]

Who is this "George Speight"? A basement tester or something more I am unaware of? I am amazed how such personages as him or G.Banks can be so impertinent, vocal, distasteful and clueless about anything.

Do you "George Speight" have a college degree? Could you show your GPA (if such does exist)?

Kai

Try Wiki, not sure if it's the same guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Speight
Just realized it can't be, as the Wiki one is currently in prison and is a criminal.

[Laskos]

Who is this "George Speight"? A basement tester or something more I am unaware of? I am amazed how such personages as him or G.Banks can be so impertinent, vocal, distasteful and clueless about anything.

Do you "George Speight" have a college degree? Could you show your GPA (if such does exist)?

Kai

Try Wiki, not sure if it's the same guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Speight
Just realized it can't be, as the Wiki one is currently in prison and is a criminal.

Thanks, nowdays it's enough to have a cellphone to post on CCC, who knows...

Kai

[K I Hyams]

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/

Last edited by George Speight on Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:21 am; edited 1 time in total

I wonder why you needed to edit a post that consisted of 4 smilies. Perhaps you counted them incorrectly on your first attempt.

In the past, you have associated yourself with the nickname “George Sp8”. Your posts indicate that “George Sp7.9” may be more appropriate.

[K I Hyams]

Now let's move on to whether Rybka is in some way a derivative of Fruit.

Mr. Rajlich claimed that Strelka was a clone of Rybka.

It was determined that Strelka is very closely based upon Fruit.

If those two statements are true, then that version of Rybka must be very closely based on Fruit as well. I suppose that it's possible in 1 out of 1000 instances that this might not be true, but that's well beyond the realm of "reaosnable doubt".

Therefore at least one version of commercial Rybka is closely based on Fruit.

That's a violation of the GPL.

That makes Mr. Rajlich dishonest.

Now that this is established, let's examine the Strelka situation further. Mr. Rajlich loudly condemned Strelka for being a clone, direct copy, or whatever of Rybka (to quote the forum: "It is a direct Reverse Engineer of Rybka"). Mr. Rajlich did the same essential thing with Rybka, regarding Fruit.

That makes Mr. Rajlich a hypocrite (pot calling kettle black, etc.).

Mr. Rajlich has categorically denied that Rybka is based on Fruit.

That makes Mr. Rajlich a liar.

In fact, the evidence for the association between Fruit and Rybka 1 is stronger than you think. The experts compared Rybka 1 to Fruit, they did not compare Strelka to Fruit.

The relevance of Strelka was that, as a consequence of Rajlich's comments about Strelka, the experts became aware of a possible link between Rybka 1 and Fruit.

[geots]

Now let's move on to whether Rybka is in some way a derivative of Fruit.

Mr. Rajlich claimed that Strelka was a clone of Rybka.

It was determined that Strelka is very closely based upon Fruit.

If those two statements are true, then that version of Rybka must be very closely based on Fruit as well. I suppose that it's possible in 1 out of 1000 instances that this might not be true, but that's well beyond the realm of "reaosnable doubt".

Therefore at least one version of commercial Rybka is closely based on Fruit.

That's a violation of the GPL.

That makes Mr. Rajlich dishonest.

Now that this is established, let's examine the Strelka situation further. Mr. Rajlich loudly condemned Strelka for being a clone, direct copy, or whatever of Rybka (to quote the forum: "It is a direct Reverse Engineer of Rybka"). Mr. Rajlich did the same essential thing with Rybka, regarding Fruit.

That makes Mr. Rajlich a hypocrite (pot calling kettle black, etc.).

Mr. Rajlich has categorically denied that Rybka is based on Fruit.

That makes Mr. Rajlich a liar.

In fact, the evidence for the association between Fruit and Rybka 1 is stronger than you think. The experts compared Rybka 1 to Fruit, they did not compare Strelka to Fruit.

The relevance of Strelka was that, as a consequence of Rajlich's comments about Strelka, the experts became aware of a possible link between Rybka 1 and Fruit.

The problem with all this is obvious. Barrister wasnt here 2 years ago when we were hashing out this same crap- so he doesnt understand what was going on. He makes all these claims, yet then says he knows nothing about programming. So how does he know this. Easy. He doesnt. He has been listening to other people he believes who have studies the codes or whatever thy had available to them. The problem is the same it was 2 years ago when i left. For very programmer who says they found evidence, i can match them up with one just as well thought of who will claim they found nothing to lead to anything concerning Rybka. And you, having been here- know that. Someone repeating what they heard doesnt make it true. I was basing my comments for that reason on the idea that if you cant prove it by yourself, it's hearsay and therefore worthless. Only excellent programmers should be making observations. I did not say it isnt true- I said give Vas a fair shake. Im not a programmer, so i know actually no more than Barrister. Difference is im not running around saying theins that i can't prove- like many are. Jujst pretend for a moment you are in court concerning this. The judge asks Barrister what he knows without a doubt to be true, and explain how he reached that decision. He cant. All he can say is he heard it from other people. What do you think the judge will do with that testimony. So lets leave this to the experts. My personal opinion, and you or anyone has the right to disagree, is that if we are not programmers who have studied bits and pieces of code- we should stay out of the argument. I didnt say it was one way or the other- just that hearsay should be left out.

Best to You

[Rolf]

the experts became aware

But we agree that experts are no judges in court trials or did I miss a new lynching variation? So, for the sake of decency Vas is innocent. And no Fabien nor Keith could change this. Period.

[Damir]

No but FSF can.

[K I Hyams]

But we agree that experts are no judges in court trials or did I miss a new lynching variation?

The post from which the quote below was taken was sandwiched between 2 of your posts and was a reply to Graham. However, you may have "missed" it. I was under the impression that you were more interested in justice than legality.

It is pretty obvious that you confuse justice with legality. Although, on the occasions on which they bring about the same outcome they may appear to be the same thing, they are not; one is what you seek and the other is what you get. Given the difference between the two, it is unwise to assume that somebody who seeks “finality” will get it from a legal system.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

the experts became aware

But we agree that experts are no judges in court trials or did I miss a new lynching variation? So, for the sake of decency Vas is innocent. And no Fabien nor Keith could change this. Period.

But of course,you are absolutely right Sir....
Infact,when I seeked the word innocent in my Concise Oxford English dictionary,I was amazed to see this:

innocent
n adjective
1 not guilty of a crime or offence. Ønot responsible or directly involved: an innocent bystander.
2 free from moral wrong; not corrupted.
3 not intended to cause offence; harmless.
4 (innocent of) without experience or knowledge of: a man innocent of war's cruelties. Øwithout; lacking.
n noun an innocent person.

DERIVATIVES
innocence noun
innocency noun (archaic).
innocently adverb

ORIGIN
Vasik Rajlich

[Rolf]

But we agree that experts are no judges in court trials or did I miss a new lynching variation?

The post from which the quote below was taken was sandwiched between 2 of your posts and was a reply to Graham. However, you may have "missed" it. I was under the impression that you were more interested in justice than legality.

It is pretty obvious that you confuse justice with legality. Although, on the occasions on which they bring about the same outcome they may appear to be the same thing, they are not; one is what you seek and the other is what you get. Given the difference between the two, it is unwise to assume that somebody who seeks “finality” will get it from a legal system.

Thanks for the question, Keith. The answer is in short.
We have finality already, Keith.
The actual stand is, Vas is innocent in Law and in Justice.

Of course that could be changed, but only with court trials and following verdicts, NOT by proclamations and mass demonstrations. So, we must not _do_ anything, because Vas is factually and legally innocent.

To change this, it is necessary to come from libel to decent court trial accusations with the following verdicts. Only this could change the status of Vas from innocent to guilty.

It is indecent and illegal do decide that there wont be a court case but we continue the public defamations. This is truly unethical, not what Vas should have done.