What should Robert do? (read post first before you vote)

[gotogo]

you did not post enough options to vote on so... my vote is to let robert sue the jerk

[Rebel]

Think a little about this, and then tell me, sincerely.

So you have decided to ignore the knowledge, wisdom and experience Don and I have gathered through 30+ years? Maybe you should try Bob, he has 40+

Seriously, you sound like someone who has travelled around the whole equator, all the 40.000 km and concludes the Earth is flat since he never fell off. The thought itself looks sound and yet wrong.

Whatever I say won't get through, I can live with that but I think Robert deserves a better defender.

[Lavir]

Your response was disguised as a response, it was not a real one. You completely ignored the real point so it was not a response at all.

So what's the REAL point since in your opinion I did "miss" it? Please explain me.

You basically said that it's easy if you "copy" verbatim everything in every detail. You said that without actually using the word copy, basically advocating either copying or building a semantically identical program.

1. I used the word "copy" everywhere, I don't understand how you can say something like this. The only difference is that I used it both for when one copy/paste source and both for when one copy ideas with different implementation; it is for this that you insist I didn't use the word "copy"?

2. I never said "it's easy if you copy verbatim everything in every detail", quite the contrary, in fact. I said that instead of "easier" it is much faster, and it is only much easier for those that don't understand almost anything at all of what those ideas do anyway (and so in any case they cannot build upon them any connection; naturally in this case it IS copying, and here it is the great difference). So, for the case we are discussing here is not "easier" at all.

3. Yes, personally (and not only personally, I will expand on this later) I don't find any of them copying at all as long as you CAN develop the idea to create another connection therein, i.e. factually developing another idea from the same.

I talk here about "copying" because it is how the thing is approached here from the angle of copy/paste source, and I include in the term also copying the idea with a different implementation. So, for me, nor what you (or others) have done not what Robert has done constitute copying, just because you both developed connections from previous works, a thing (using previous work to create connections upon) that happens all the time in EVERY field (it's impossible to not do the same, willingly or unwillingly) when you create something (apparently or not) new.

I have not been demonizing Robert. I have been trying to have an honest conversation. In the past I have in fact been pretty harsh and I still have bad feelings about what was done and do not back down on that, but I have discovered there is nothing I can do about it and that it is something we will have to live with and I might as well get along with him and everyone else. Show me a recent post where I have been "demonized" Robert. I'm waiting ....

You used the word "demonize", not me. You said it yourself that "I have in fact been pretty harsh and I still have bad feelings about what was done", so you obviously think that what Robert did is somewhat ethically different from what other top programmers (as you) did and do, isn't it?

If that's so and on view of this discussion (that concerns just these points) what do you think it's the great difference between copy and use an idea in its totality (so also with its implementation) and copy the same and implement it differently? [naturally we will leave aside here the building of a connection or not therein for simplicity and just concern with the act itself]

That explains why you don't understand the reference I gave you. You used the same approach of starting with a strong program so of course you don't understand the difference. That is why you defend it.

????

An hacker doesn't build nothing from the source. He just (or at least what I did) hacks protections in the same.

I actually understand the differences in the two practically and factually speaking (i.e. in the approach and modus operandi), I just don't see them from an ethical/moral point of view (that's the one we are talking about here).

Philosophy is a very empty thing. There is huge body of philosophy and most of it is complete nonsense.

Can be. Yet when you talk about ideas and ethical and moral points of views therein, plus what really constitutes a new idea and how the same is approached - philosophy is the only "discipline" that has grounds on where to establish and talk concretely of the same.

Surely mathematics and science will not help here because the parameters concerns abstract patterns more than concrete ones. You cannot certainly, for example, understand the concept behind the idea in sculpture by Michelangelo and what constitutes therein the "new" part by numbers or with electronic devices without filling the gaps with that knowledge.

Just one example, study Plato and Socrates and see their philosophy on life after death.

That's because every sentence contains in itself a contradiction. The problematic of philosophy is not a problematic that has to do with it itself, but on the parameters it is built to look upon, that are based upon contradictions.

But it's just this what actually makes philosophy more real than, for example, science, because it encompass nature much more than this last can do, given its obvious limitations imposed by the means and given that nature encompass abstract parameters too (and with them, contradictions).

You will never impress me by talking philosophy, an "art" where you can say and believe anything and make it seem intelligent.

I'm not here to impress you. You wanted to know on which "title" I did talk about these things and I told you, and, as I said, as a matter of fact philosophy is more pertinent than programming is (for what it constitutes an "original" idea and the thins tied to the same).

You need philosophy to feel superior?

You maybe want to re-read your previous reply to me because you obviously miss a passage. It is not me that tried to impose my superiority with what I know upon you, but the other way around.

[Lavir]

So you have decided to ignore the knowledge, wisdom and experience Don and I have gathered through 30+ years? Maybe you should try Bob, he has 40+

I didn't ignore anything. I asked you many things and you just didn't reply to any of them.

Oh well....

I asked you to explain the difference from your point of view on the points I did make (and that were based upon what I know and what is my knowledge) but the only thing you have done here is to insist I ignored what you said and your knowledge there... when you said and given nothing.

Whatever I say won't get through, I can live with that but I think Robert deserves a better defender.

I'm not defending Robert at all. You understand really anything at all, seriously.

I'm making with you a so called "philosophical" conversation on what constitutes copying and its parameters. Robert is just the point of start on which the debate started, nothing more.

P.S.: As an aside note, it's good to see how you both continue to feel "superior" to me just because you are programmers (apart that I was too... but let's leave the thing here), and yet I've told you that I wrote treatises on philosophy that it's MUCH MORE IMPORTANT on this point than knowing programming can and will ever be.

Seriously guys, *I* that could indeed pretend to be superior on this thing am not using what I know in this sense (because I didn't provide any external references or quotes to prove what I say) and I don't do it because I find it lame, and you instead, that probably know NOTHING about these things (as it is obvious), continue to pretend to be "superior" than me and look down on me?

Oh well, as you like...

[hgm]

P.S: Btw if in ever once in your life *you* will be right and I wrong in whatsoever argument, it will probably mean that the end or the world is near. Believe me, you have no possibility against me, there's no way. Just a friendly hint.

[Lavir]

And that should prove what?

If it was to try to prove that I tried to impose my superiority upon you, then you missed the point because that sentence doesn't IMPOSE anything (and here we return to the point of what constitutes genius and the ability to make connections; you can understand by yourself when instead not being able to make them even when banal what constitutes....)

I was just stating that you had no chance of winning an argument with me. It is not an imposition of superiority at all, I wan't trying to make you feel unable to have a discussion with me with what you know; it was an affirmation of the same, that's a different thing altogether, since I never looked down upon what you said on the pretense that you are "inferior" to me (and would never do), I was just making you understand that you had no chance to win since you obviously only care about being right all the time (and only that; you don't care at all about the argument as long as you can "win" in some way).

Now, if you cannot understand the difference that's not my problem.

P.S: Btw, for a proof that you just want to win the above message is enough. You discarded altogether the question I did put you (that was the important part) and tried to attack me on this point that has nothing of importance whatsoever just to try to start a discussion where you can hopefully "win" (in your opinion).

Will you admit it? We both know you will not.

[kranium]

Certainly for the archive,
Robbolito was translated before the 0.85g3 version, meaning that the issue of translation does not serve as GPL.


Fuente:
http://open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2248&start=20

Code: Select all

Trivial is too strong a word. Simple fits it better.
I noticed some guys on CCC believing the translation to be a great accomplishment (for example: "Here Norman and Milos did a huge translation job and made the free Robbolito source code understandable in English", Ed Shroder, http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47073). Well, this is how it is done. You just pick the source files one by one (starting with headers), look for Italian words, pick one, open the quick replace dialog in visual studio, look up the word translation using Google Translate, pick the best fitting translation, click the "Replace All" button. As you progress through the files it becomes easier to understand the code. I was half through the process myself when Kranium's version appeared. My estimate is 2h-4h for the entire translation. And this translation is already present in 0.85d3.
Btw, bugfixing and porting to Windows was probably done by Yuri Osipov. I managed to google this: "RobboLito RobboLito 0.084 x86 sources and exe for Windows by Y.Osipov" (from a post on immortal forum).
ThinkingALot
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:32 am

Robbolito, 0.85d3
http://www.mediafire.com/?gijdztzjy238cyc

Jose-
for the record:

0.85d3 was released by me...it's one of our 1st releases

the translation is really rough, as it had really just started...
it was refined and improved with each of our subsequent 18 releases
with our last release, 0.09, it was near perfect IMO

for ex:
'precise_hole' (present in d3) eventually became 'exact_depth',
'YEARS' became 'global_age'
ABYSS became 'depth',
etc., etc.

he suggests using Google translate, but i can assure you that would not suffice 100% in this effort...
the language seemed to be a mix of Italian and Albanian dialect, many terms used proved difficult to find, and required being taken into context

i can assure you that Osipov had nothing to do with our windows porting and debugging efforts
frankly i find the suggestion rather mean-spirited, and i have no clue why he would speculate and post it,
other than the fact that some people seem rather determined to eliminate or minimize the value of our contributions

Norm

[bob]

Address those points instead of completely ignoring them and repeating your rhetoric over and over again so that this is an actual conversation.

Already did. You want to read my reply to Ed above, thanks.

(Btw you don't seem to understand what the word "rhetoric" really means in philosophical terms, because it is completely out of scope on the points I'm making.)

If you want to have a reasonable conversation you need to stop demonizing people for having the audacity to look at program source explicitly created for people to look at and learn from.

And you say this to ME, when you and many others are demonizing Robert all around for something that everyone of you has done in the same way (again, I repeat: there's no difference from taking all ideas that make a program strong and implement them differently or just copy/past them, NONE, from an ethical standpoint that it's the one you are accusing Robert with)?

This is utter nonsense. There is a HUGE difference between copying tens of thousands of lines of C, vs taking ideas and combining them into something that plays chess.

Sort of like looking at some car, noticing "rear wheel drive, transmission to provide various gear ratios to accelerate quickly but cruise efficiently, V6 (or whatever motor) and so forth, as opposed to just copying everything "as is" and then tweak something here and there. There is a HUGE difference. That you don't grasp that shows a pretty serious lack of ethical understanding.

Oh well....

I have to say that this conversation is way over your head anyway. You are not a programmer, you don't understand even the most basic principles (see the references above) and you don't even have basic listening skills which given your status is more important than ever.

Since you want to play the pantomime of "who has the longer d*ck", let me ogblige... I've "worked" as an hacker when I was much younger. I was in the the then named "Immortal" team. I probably know more about programming than you do (or at last I did).

Apart this, I know more about philosophy (so rhetoric, what constitutes an idea and its principles - I actually gave an hint you a time before with Adorno and Heiddeger) and such than probably you and all of your "friends" know altogether since I studied them extensively and even wrote treatises on the same.

So, you see, your attempt at denigrating me as not adapt for your "superiority" on the matter backfired a little. Even if I really was inferior to you on this point, trying to play the card already demonstrated how much in difficulty you are, and how much probably something I said earlier has hurt your ego a little.

I'd suggest studying "computer science ethics" for a bit before diving into water where you have no idea how deep it is and what lies just below the surface.

[Lavir]

Sort of like looking at some car, noticing "rear wheel drive, transmission to provide various gear ratios to accelerate quickly but cruise efficiently, V6 (or whatever motor) and so forth, as opposed to just copying everything "as is" and then tweak something here and there. There is a HUGE difference. That you don't grasp that shows a pretty serious lack of ethical understanding.

I grasp it well enough, but differently from you, I grasp some other things that you don't and you did COMPLETELY miss since you posted this nonsense example after what I said (hence obviously understanding nothing of it; for a little hint re-read the point 2 in the previous post to Don; there's an hint there that I hope somebody would be able to find to finally come to a consensus here).

I will make you a little example myself and let's see what will be your explanation (oh and don't say that in chess it is different because it's EXACTLY the same thing):

If Caprotti does a reproduction of the Gioconda by using different procedures to mix colors, a different sketch approach and on a different style it is still considered a copy (hence the term "reproduction").

If Tintoretto does a painting by using same methods to create colors of venetians (in this case Tiziano), uses the same approach to create the sketch of the painting, uses the same style to paint and even explore the same subject (Christ) it is NOT considered a copy at all (all the contrary in fact).

So tell me, great expert, where is the difference? Why even if the first case is obviously a different "implementation" but same "idea" while the other is same idea with same implementation the former is considered a reproduction in art while not the latter?

Tic toc, tic toc....

EDIT: Just because I don't want you to say some silly thing: no, it is not because the subject (Christ) is approached differently.

I'd suggest studying "computer science ethics" for a bit before diving into water where you have no idea how deep it is and what lies just below the surface.

I'd suggest you to really know something of what you talk about (in general) before jumping on the bandwagon because you DON'T need to study "computer science ethics" to know these things, because the "computer science ethics" you talk about are based on the same principles as other arts (hence on philosophical points) on this matter (since it is from there that people have formed a consensus on which to establish if a work can be considered original or not).

I can accept that you don't know this (also if I find amusing that you along others still want to "school" me here when you obviously know very little about it, apart what you are fed up; you just parrot what you know but you don't really understand why it is so), but the problem is the same for EVERY discipline, not just for programming or chess programming. The fact that you can think so already demonstrates how little you know about these things in concrete terms.

The concept of what constitutes "originality" and what constitutes a "copy" (or plagiarism or reproduction) is the same for WHATEVER art and WHATEVER form of expression, being it chess, painting, writing. Some little details can indeed change, but the structure on which the concepts of what constitutes a copy or not are the same and they are based upon. a form of consensus that goes beyond them.

[leslies]

leave things as they are