rjand wrote:I really don't understand why all this arguing back and forth. So somebody has some questions about a program... Big deal. I don't think Mr. Hyatt would lie. Let him do his homework and if he finds something- Great. If he finds that nothing was done wrong - even better. Is there something wrong with someone researching something he has a question about??
Rick Andrews
Nice try. Homework yes. Where and how? Would you think that Bob should lament here in public or should he better compare the programs in doubts? But in truth he laments and talks and attacks and insults, because the ethical rule is violated which says: innocent until PROVEN guilty. Proven, not prejudiced. Ask if you miss something.
Hi Rolf,
Maybe I did miss something. Did he say that Rybka definitley did something wrong or that he suspected it.
From left to right, Frans Morsch, Mathias Feist, unknown to me, Alex Kure. By the way, the latter may very well sign as Alex K.
Enrique
Unknown = Jeroen van den Belt Jeroen is responsible for the spectacular photo-realistic 3D boards in Fritz, as well as many cool Playchess.com server functions (for instance the NASA globe pictures).
rjand wrote:I really don't understand why all this arguing back and forth. So somebody has some questions about a program... Big deal. I don't think Mr. Hyatt would lie. Let him do his homework and if he finds something- Great. If he finds that nothing was done wrong - even better. Is there something wrong with someone researching something he has a question about??
Rick Andrews
Nice try. Homework yes. Where and how? Would you think that Bob should lament here in public or should he better compare the programs in doubts? But in truth he laments and talks and attacks and insults, because the ethical rule is violated which says: innocent until PROVEN guilty. Proven, not prejudiced. Ask if you miss something.
Hi Rolf,
Maybe I did miss something. Did he say that Rybka definitley did something wrong or that he suspected it.
Rick Andrews
The answer lies in your "big deal" from above. I repeat. Instead of doing his homework as a scientist, this is also what Ed Schroeder advised to Bob and his teamsters, Bob, as I wrote, laments and questiones here in public and this way he violates the iron ethical rule of "innocent until proven guilty". Because Bob is by no means the judge, nor the police, nor the attorney general who should make this case if there were any case at all. By his behavior here in public (note that this can be read woreldwide without registration) creates the impression as if "something" fishy in Rybka would exist, but this is on a level where you could ask the same questions of "research" for all other commercial programs. And with the focus on Rybka the research itself smells fishy. Note also that Bob isnt even entitles by a court to act here as expert. If he were BTW, Bob would never act here in public in the same manner. So all in all it makes no sense other than you see thisd here as a big campaign and this is exactly what many high status experts have made clear.
I must admit that you cant understand what Bob did wrong if you ignore the campaign aspect here in public and simply reduce the problem on the question if Bob had definitely accused Rybka or its author. The problem isnt that simple. However IMO the language being used over the months allows the conclusion of the implicite pre-judgement against Rybka&Author, because otherwise one wouldnt make such a campaign.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
rjand wrote:I really don't understand why all this arguing back and forth. So somebody has some questions about a program... Big deal. I don't think Mr. Hyatt would lie. Let him do his homework and if he finds something- Great. If he finds that nothing was done wrong - even better. Is there something wrong with someone researching something he has a question about??
Rick Andrews
Nice try. Homework yes. Where and how? Would you think that Bob should lament here in public or should he better compare the programs in doubts? But in truth he laments and talks and attacks and insults, because the ethical rule is violated which says: innocent until PROVEN guilty. Proven, not prejudiced. Ask if you miss something.
Hi Rolf,
Maybe I did miss something. Did he say that Rybka definitley did something wrong or that he suspected it.
Rick Andrews
The answer lies in your "big deal" from above. I repeat. Instead of doing his homework as a scientist, this is also what Ed Schroeder advised to Bob and his teamsters, Bob, as I wrote, laments and questiones here in public and this way he violates the iron ethical rule of "innocent until proven guilty". Because Bob is by no means the judge, nor the police, nor the attorney general who should make this case if there were any case at all. By his behavior here in public (note that this can be read woreldwide without registration) creates the impression as if "something" fishy in Rybka would exist, but this is on a level where you could ask the same questions of "research" for all other commercial programs. And with the focus on Rybka the research itself smells fishy. Note also that Bob isnt even entitles by a court to act here as expert. If he were BTW, Bob would never act here in public in the same manner. So all in all it makes no sense other than you see thisd here as a big campaign and this is exactly what many high status experts have made clear.
I must admit that you cant understand what Bob did wrong if you ignore the campaign aspect here in public and simply reduce the problem on the question if Bob had definitely accused Rybka or its author. The problem isnt that simple. However IMO the language being used over the months allows the conclusion of the implicite pre-judgement against Rybka&Author, because otherwise one wouldnt make such a campaign.
Thanks Rolf, Good answer I see your point.
Rick Andrews
mclane wrote:sorry steve. was your text under GPL?
i did not want to copy your copyright material.
yes it was GPL ..so there are no legal issues and all posts using this idea are OK Great Post Licence Regards
Steve
I wonder if everyy word of your post is GPL copyrighted or just combinations of words...
If it is the first, I have to delete from my post any word repeated from your post.
mclane wrote:sorry steve. was your text under GPL?
i did not want to copy your copyright material.
yes it was GPL ..so there are no legal issues and all posts using this idea are OK Great Post Licence Regards
Steve
I wonder if everyy word of your post is GPL copyrighted or just combinations of words...
If it is the first, I have to delete from my post any word repeated from your post.
CopyRight
CopyLeft
Regards,
Geno
Not necessarily. You can use any GPL protected words, sentences, paragraphs or even full libraries, as long as you post them in public forums and develop the original content. Now, if you use any GPL words and keep them privately to your selfish self, then you'll be outside the Law and will pay for it.
rjand wrote:I really don't understand why all this arguing back and forth. So somebody has some questions about a program... Big deal. I don't think Mr. Hyatt would lie. Let him do his homework and if he finds something- Great. If he finds that nothing was done wrong - even better. Is there something wrong with someone researching something he has a question about??
Rick Andrews
Nice try. Homework yes. Where and how? Would you think that Bob should lament here in public or should he better compare the programs in doubts? But in truth he laments and talks and attacks and insults, because the ethical rule is violated which says: innocent until PROVEN guilty. Proven, not prejudiced. Ask if you miss something.
Hi Rolf,
Maybe I did miss something. Did he say that Rybka definitley did something wrong or that he suspected it.
Rick Andrews
The answer lies in your "big deal" from above. I repeat. Instead of doing his homework as a scientist, this is also what Ed Schroeder advised to Bob and his teamsters, Bob, as I wrote, laments and questiones here in public and this way he violates the iron ethical rule of "innocent until proven guilty". Because Bob is by no means the judge, nor the police, nor the attorney general who should make this case if there were any case at all. By his behavior here in public (note that this can be read woreldwide without registration) creates the impression as if "something" fishy in Rybka would exist, but this is on a level where you could ask the same questions of "research" for all other commercial programs. And with the focus on Rybka the research itself smells fishy. Note also that Bob isnt even entitles by a court to act here as expert. If he were BTW, Bob would never act here in public in the same manner. So all in all it makes no sense other than you see thisd here as a big campaign and this is exactly what many high status experts have made clear.
I must admit that you cant understand what Bob did wrong if you ignore the campaign aspect here in public and simply reduce the problem on the question if Bob had definitely accused Rybka or its author. The problem isnt that simple. However IMO the language being used over the months allows the conclusion of the implicite pre-judgement against Rybka&Author, because otherwise one wouldnt make such a campaign.
Thanks Rolf, Good answer I see your point.
Rick Andrews
One giant producer of static. My part in this so far has been to discount the idea that two different programmers will write a chess program that has multiple blocks of duplicate code. The probability is too low to worry with.
mclane wrote:sorry steve. was your text under GPL?
i did not want to copy your copyright material.
yes it was GPL ..so there are no legal issues and all posts using this idea are OK Great Post Licence Regards
Steve
I wonder if every word of your post is GPL copyrighted or just combinations of words...
If it is the first, I have to delete from my post any word repeated from your post.
CopyRight
CopyLeft
Regards,
Geno
and lets be very clear here Geno
you cannot simply shuffle my words around to sneak past the Great Post Licence..indeed..the ideas embodied in my post come out the same no matter how the words are shuffled and mixed
(which,sadly, does not say very much for the ideas to begin with)
