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

[hgm]

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

You know nothing.

But first things first: Will you admit you are a viscious liar and apologize for it? After that we can continue the discussion you side-tracked us from. Not one second before...

[PK]

Fabio,

I hate to say that, but Your tone of discussion makes rather poor advertisement for PhDs, books You wrote, philosophy and liberal arts. In fact, all that stuff You mention is just as useless in that discussion as my expertise in mediaeval chronicles and my Latin translations.

In short, your distinction between "copying" and "ideas", Your strong claim about the dominant role of ideas and moral equivalence of copying ideas and copying verbatim, fits the world of literature, but not the world of programming.

Please consider the following: if a writer copies somebody else's words (and it doesn't need to be a criminal offence - in fact it is possible to write an open source project in a way poets of yore wrote so-called centons) he or she is 100% certain that these words already "work".

If a programmer copies code/ adapts code / uses somebody else's ideas - there is absolutely no guarantee that they will work within her/his framework. Quoting Plato does not prevent quoting Aristotle, but using lazy eval prevents or at least hinders pruning decisions based on exact king safety score. If You copy a tiny bit of somebody else's program, You in fact leave out the thing that matters most: the interaction between the elements, programmer's equivalent of "[ars] nescio quid blandium spirans".

the real moral problem of copying stuff on a large scale is making use of that hidden factor without necessarily understanding it. "copying" ideas requires understanding how they affect the stuff You have already created, requires bending them to fit a construction that already exists. It is completely different situation. And I say it not as a Phd or whoever else, but as an humble author of a derivative engine, who learned by trial and error what it takes to copy.

[Lavir]

Fabio,

I hate to say that, but Your tone of discussion makes rather poor advertisement for PhDs, books You wrote, philosophy and liberal arts. In fact, all that stuff You mention is just as useless in that discussion as my expertise in mediaeval chronicles and my Latin translations.

A. It was not me that tried to school others even when I know much more about the thing than others here.

B. As I said the underlying principles of what constitutes an original work are the same for every "discipline". There are superficial changes that can variate since some are more abstract and some more practical, but the underlying principles of what constitute an original idea and what constitutes a copy are exactly the same. In fact laws that govern copyright are based on that consensus (that come from philosophy). In very short term, it is not the ACT (i.e. copy/paste vs. copy idea different implementation that constitutes copying or not, it is something else. It is like for weapons that are not "bad" per se, yet there are laws to prohibit their use, but it is not because of the thing in itself).

Fabio,
the real moral problem of copying stuff on a large scale is making use of that hidden factor without necessarily understanding it. "copying" ideas requires understanding how they affect the stuff You have already created, requires bending them to fit a construction that already exists. It is completely different situation. And I say it not as a Phd or whoever else, but as an humble author of a derivative engine, who learned by trial and error what it takes to copy.

FINALLY!!!!

We are coming there. In fact there is a difference between copy/paste and copy with different implementation, but it is NOT in the act itself (for this I said that there's no difference between the two previously, because these people are trying to differentiate the act, and this is completely wrong).

It is tied to the fact that one approach has a much higher probability of being indeed used to copy (i.e. appropriate others work for personal gain but giving absolutely nothing in return), while the latter it's very difficult that it can be such, but naturally this doesn't mean that everyone that copy/paste is a copier as it doesn't mean that those that do the other thing instead are original just for this. The act is neutral in itself, and it's something else - that's tied to the act but it's not the act itself - that distinguish from the work being a copy/reproduction or not. My example on the previous post to Hyatt was meant to come to this conclusion if one actually pondered about it a little instead of playing the ego war.

Let's see if we can finally come to a conclusion of why it is so.

If instead of these others people that you defend trying to school me they tried to actually have a discussion as you are doing, maybe all this pantomime would have ended much before.

I started just wanting to have a debate on this by giving an opinion and being open to listen to others. I have done so even if I already know the argument front to end just because you can have an opinion on something even if you know nothing on it.

But then people started schooling me on the pretense that they know much more yet knowing absolutely nothing about it, and then, I'm sorry but I cannot accept that.

I already know perfectly the underlying principles that constitutes an original idea vs. a copied one, I wrote the preface to the italian translations of a book of Ouspensky and Csikzentmihalyi on those points (as evolved from Adorno/Heiddeger on Holderlin), so I don't need anybody to school me on this, especially people that obviously just parrot what they have been fed yet knowing not why it is so.

If we are going to discuss this person to person without one imposing superiority to the other, I am perfectly willing to listen, give opinions and receiving them without problems, but when the thing transformed to a "I school you because I'm better on the pretense of nothing" then let's play with open cards.

[Lavir]

You know nothing.

As you like.

But I still place my bet that if for even once in your life you will be able to win an argument against me the end of the world is near.

But first things first: Will you admit you are a viscious liar and apologize for it? After that we can continue the discussion you side-tracked us from. Not one second before...

I never lied about you. I just made a brief summary. You gave an affinity mask that was no mask at all just because it had both logical and physical processes used to Martin, I said that what you gave was nonsense because that would just be like using nothing and you pretended that there's no difference whatsoever from a logical and physical process in HT (hence me saying that you said that logical process don't exist, because if you think so ipso-facto the outcome is the same) and me giving you a simple wikipedia link to disprove the fact, on which you mysteriously suddenly quieted.

All this was written and quotable from the old thread of Martin about nTCEC, that however sadly it has been deleted (as you probably know hence you trying to play the game) but I know perfectly that this is what happened and you know it too.

I don't need to lie about what you say to prove that you know very little of everything you talk about even if you pretend to be an expert of everything; what you say and do is more than enough.

Now have the last word and leave me alone.

[hgm]

A. It was not me that tried to school others even when I know much more about the thing than others here.

Indeed, you were probably only here to badmouth other people.

Perhaps you were the only one that needed schooling? In manners?

[Lavir]

Indeed, you were probably only here to badmouth other people.

Perhaps you were the only one that needed schooling? In manners?

It doesn't seem that *I* was the one to start this, isn't it?

There will ever be once in your life that you will write something of concrete and reply to something of concrete instead of just trying to win an argument by these silly tricks? Apart that it's not working, you obviously are just making an abysmal figure, I tell you.

[zullil]

It doesn't seem that *I* was the one to start this, isn't it?

Actually, I no longer care who started anything. Since the software we use on this site doesn't allow me to filter posts, all I want is for it to stop. Please take some time off.

[Lavir]

I already wanted to do so.

It's a shame because the argument "copy vs original work" is a very interesting one, with many subtle facets that makes for very constructive debates if the parties are willing to discuss the thing intelligently and without imposing anything on others.

Sadly it seems like in this forum it's impossible to do such. The fact is that all the thing is much more about "politics" than anything else, and nobody really cares to understand or come to a consensus therein, they just want to win the battle of who is more morally acceptable, that's it the moral counterpart of winning the battle for the better engine in practical play.

Let's just say that I've learned my lesson.

[hgm]

It doesn't seem that *I* was the one to start this, isn't it?

If it doesn't seem like that to you your head must be filled with rocks...

Everone else can see that it was you and no other than you to start it, by dragging in the hyper threading, and lying about a link that I allegedly would have posted about that. Indeed, it was your 'As usual...' that started it all.

And only you can undo that. But considering your capacity for understanding what is said to you, it is not likely that thi will happen.

Another friendly hint:

If someone says to you: "your behavior is a disgrace to PhDs and philosophy", then they don't mean you should not have mentioned you had a PhD in philosophy...

No, it doesn't seem you have learned any lesson at all.

[Adam Hair]

You know nothing.

As you like.

But I still place my bet that if for even once in your life you will be able to win an argument against me the end of the world is near.

But first things first: Will you admit you are a viscious liar and apologize for it? After that we can continue the discussion you side-tracked us from. Not one second before...

I never lied about you. I just made a brief summary. You gave an affinity mask that was no mask at all just because it had both logical and physical processes used to Martin, I said that what you gave was nonsense because that would just be like using nothing and you pretended that there's no difference whatsoever from a logical and physical process in HT (hence me saying that you said that logical process don't exist, because if you think so ipso-facto the outcome is the same) and me giving you a simple wikipedia link to disprove the fact, on which you mysteriously suddenly quieted.

All this was written and quotable from the old thread of Martin about nTCEC, that however sadly it has been deleted (as you probably know hence you trying to play the game) but I know perfectly that this is what happened and you know it too.

I don't need to lie about what you say to prove that you know very little of everything you talk about even if you pretend to be an expert of everything; what you say and do is more than enough.

Now have the last word and leave me alone.

TCEC resurrection - need to decide between ponder ON or OFF
TNGCC - need to decide ponder ON or OFF (new poll)

Moderation has not deleted nor removed any posts:

You have a misconception of how HT works. With HT on there are no physical cores to get, and all a process could ever get is one or more logical cores. One physical core is multiplexed to emulate two fully equivalent logical cores. The odd slots in the re-order buffer will contain the instructions of one logical core, the even slots those of the other.

I don't have a "misconception" about anything. If you use Windows and set affinities manually (or via the "set affinity" hex mask) the 0,2,4,6 (on a 4 CPU PC) are the physical cores, while 1,3,5,7 are the logical cores.

There ARE the physical cores, in HT: 'Hyper-threading works by duplicating certain sections of the processor—those that store the architectural state—but not duplicating the main execution resources. This allows a hyper-threading processor to appear as the usual "physical" processor and an extra "logical" processor to the host operating system' and for the system one is the physical, and the other is the logical.