slobo wrote:Don wrote:slobo wrote:lkaufman wrote:Well, this stuff was made public by the clones, and anyway Vas had asked me to keep such general eval knowledge confidential for a year, and it's now been a year and a half. Still I won't reveal exact values of terms in R3 even if they are more or less public due to the clones (or "derivatives" if you prefer). I doubt that they would be of much use to a non-clone program anyway, as different programs require different values for terms.
I would like to know something:
1. If only you and Vas had the Rybka 3 code, how did the "cloners" managed to get it ?
2. If Rybka's code is alredy "stealed", why you and Vas don't present evidences that the "cloners" code and the Rybka 3 one is the same?
For what reason should they do this? Every reasonable person already knows that these "clones" are based on Rybka, and whoever is left is not going to be convinced no matter what additional evidence is presented.
I know from my own dealings with people that if someone really want to believe something, no amount of evidence or logic is going to change them.
"Every reasonable person already knows that these "clones" are based on Rybka, "
You mean:
1. I am not a reasonable person because I don't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka;
I apologize for my choice of wording. I don't mean to say that you are an unreasonable person, only that the conclusion you are drawing is unreasonable.
Please understand that I'm not saying you are stupid. I have seen very smart people come to the wrong conclusions based on emotion or some kind of bias. It's part of being human and we are all subject to it.
I don't want to get too psychological here, but humans tend to make judgments based on what they want to believe, not what it actually the case. I personally believe the facts in this case are really obvious and that if you don't see them, you don't want to see them.
The way this works is that if something is presented that you don't like, it's "innuendo" and "opinion" and if you like it, it's "fact" and "evidence."
2. and also that Robert Hyatt is not a reasonable person, because he doesn't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka;
Name dropping to make a point is hardly evidence one way or the other. And even if you take Bob as the ultimate judge or authority on this he said he doesn't know and that is not particularly unreasonable (unless he really looked at the facts and still thinks it is in doubt.)
3. and also that all those who don't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka - they don't know it because Vasic did not provide any evidence in this sense -, are not reasonable persons.
Vas is under no compulsion to provide evidence on this just because you think he should. Is this another example of how you reason on things? To do so would be counter-productive for him. Please tell me WHY he needs to do this, and how it would benefit him. Do you think people will buy Rybka if he reveals that another program is based on Rybka? If he sues do you think it will help his case to reveal his arguments to give his opponents time to prepare? Do you think he should actually reveal his code to the world to make some kind of point that he cannot benefit from? And Vas must surely know that even if he reveals sections of identical or similar code it will not stop unreasonable people from explaining it away. Go the web sites and look at the people who still believe the earth is flat and that the moon landing were faked and you will see exactly what Vas would be dealing with - and then tell me why he should deal with this when there would be no benefit whatsoever in doing so - and in fact would be a huge distraction for him.
It's presumptuous and arrogant to believe that Vas must answer to us just because we want a show. In my opinion he is showing wisdom and restraint by just moving on - which is what you and I need to do.
You know what?
This statement of yours reminded me a short tale called: "The Emperor's New Clothes", by Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers-crooks who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes invisible to those who are incompetent or not enough inteligent.
I really hope you are not a programmer-crook, and that what you said was a simple accident, a LAPSUS LINGUAE, because stupidity it was not, for sure.
I think in this case you are being unreasonable again.
Sllobo,
