What's your name, Chandler Yergin??geots wrote:I cant believe you wrote all the above. All you "want" is for Vas to be found guilty. Trying to hide it in a civics lesson wont work. You stated that you were asked to take this particular position in the matter. Well, if you have any character left at all, you will step down and let unbiased people handle this- if any can be drug up.bob wrote:That is pretty much the way it works. Who do you think pays the judge? Do you find them in the same building with the district attorney that prosecutes the case? In some types of cases a judge does decide the result. In a jury trial he does not.playjunior wrote:In U.S. where you are from to the best of my knowledge, the judge does not decide innocence or guilt, the jury does. The judge is largely responsible for the procedure, as you are in this case.bob wrote:This is what has been wrong with this process from the beginning. You are assuming facts not in evidence. I am not a judge. I will not decide innocence or guilt. I will not hand down a sentence. I am simply supposed to keep the investigation on the topic of "Did Vas copy parts of Fruit (or other programs) verbatim?" We are starting with Rybka 1 beta, but that is not the only version that will be addressed. We may go back to earlier versions, or to later versions (thru Rybka 4) since all have competed.playjunior wrote:I agree that Hyatt being in the committee seems wrong.
Hyatt to me is one of the main accusers, he has systematically gathered, structured and argued for the evidence that Rybka is a Fruit clone.
People who have such direct involvement (on any side) cannot be considered "impartial judges".
The best would be if they have some scientists/authors from related fields, like go/checkers/whatever who can fully comprehend the evidence presented but do not have any previous involvement in the issue, whatsoever.
The panel that will do this is quite large and consists of a large number of programmers. The three "secretariat" members are simply there to try to keep the discussion limited to the specific topic of the investigation, and prevent all the other noise that always shows up here on CCC from obfuscating the technical merits of the arguments being made.
But nobody is paying attention to the document David sent out describing our function. They are making up their own incorrect assumptions and then complaining that those are not fair. However, they are also not real.
If you were to stand a trial, would you agree to have as the person responsible for moderating a fair and impartial process someone who has actively gathered, structured and argued on the prosecution side?
To sit on a bench, or try a case, you have to have the proper credentials, experience, training, background, education, etc. I would not want someone off the street to serve as judge for any trial involving me. I'd want a judge that is familiar with the law. There are always checks and balances. My only goal here is to make certain all the evidence is presented, and that Vas has a chance to respond point by point. And for this tete' a tete' to continue until everything that needs saying has been said, by both sides. Then the ICGA will have the ball kicked into their court to decide what, if anything, should be done...
Surely there are many specialists who haven't had such a direct involvement in accusing Rajlich, and who could be a moderator? Many wouldn't have your credentials in the field but is that so crucial for moderation? So the question here is: why not someone else as a judge? After years of finger-pointing there at last is a hope for a credible process; by sitting as a judge you are giving the other party the opportunity to call this a witch hunt and dismiss the whole process, on the objective basis that one of the main accusers is sitting as a judge!
I want judges that are willing to punish. I want prosecutors that diligently try to prove a defendant guilty. I want a vigorous defense of that defendant so that at the end of the day, hopefully justice will be served. At some point, you have to trust the system, and the people involved. In this case I believe there will be enough evidence available that the ICGA won't have to give much thought to innocence or guilt, and that they will have access to all the mitigating arguments the defense might present. At that point, it is their ballgame.
But in the end, they can drool on about this and that and what they think, but nothing will be decided unless they have access to the code or codes from later versions after Beta 1, and Vas is not stupid enough to give you or them access to any of it. Face it- you are not going to find out why he is so much smarter than you and the rest. And in the end, that is all this witch hunt is about. All this bullshit needs to be sold to someone who's buying.
You couldn't be further from the truth if you tried and you did!
You're doing the smear campaign and I think moderation should be watching your posts.
What do you know of the other programmers? What do you know about the ICGA which has been in place since the mid seventies? What do you know about David Levy or anyone for that matter?
And when it comes right down to it, what do you know about Vasik Rajlich?
Apparently not much!