John wrote:I have to agree with Bob on this ... not even our cat fears me.
I have followed this newsgroup for many years ... enjoying it, but posting very seldom.
I only started posting on this one topic, because the departure from traditional scientific norms was (IMHO) so marked, that it risked harming a community that I value.
I don't fear anyone in this kind of technical discussion. I have spent a lifetime in this specific area and know it well. And that is not meant to be insulting in any way, it is just a simple statement of fact. I look at more C to assembly translations in a week than most of the contributors to this thread have seen in their lifetime, because I want to continually find the most efficient way to write C code to produce the fastest possible assembly language. I teach an assembly language course every semester, where we often write programs in C in class, and then translate them to assembly language. It is not a "creative art". It is a simple, well-defined process.
The problem here is that there are several complex processes to deal with that take time. Going from raw machine language back to C is a pain. Because you have to understand what the machine language is doing, something made more difficult without variable and procedure names. But it can be done given some time. And then there is the semantical equivalence analysis. Again, well-understood, but time-consuming.
If simple order issues were all that one needed to break semantic equivalence, students would have free rein to plagiarize code and then change variable names, convert a few lines here into a function, re-order some lines over here than have no data/name/control dependences that prevent such, and voila', a new program is born. Except that we have to catch these, and do, regularly. It is less frequent today, because for me, "the word has gotten out."
So, it is a dead-accurate process, but also a dead-slow process. Can't help the latter.
Bob, who has ever doubted that? But I for one could see that Ed for example had a clear perception of what this here all meant to harm Vas no matter if you plus your teamsters were right or wrong, and this is something you seem to have difficulties to understand. You would surely see it differently if you were the one who were defamed. No, you'll reply we defame nobody, but Bob, Ed has exactly shown why Vas is already damaged right now. I wished an academic like you would also have a minimal understanding of such facts. Because you havent, I cant completely call you innocent in that whole campaign. Of course questions of war are much more important actually but with the same negative result for the USA... What is only going on over there? Excuse me in case I've missed your apologies somewhere.
Rolf. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. Do you remember Berliner's public protest after the 1986 WCCC tournament? I do not believe my reputation was damaged one scintilla once the facts came out, were investigated, and the ICCA published the findings. Berliner looked a bit silly, but that was his problem and not mine.
My interest is simply "was rybka derived from fruit?" A "yes or no" is all I want to see. I don't see any remedy as being able to correct that, even though it would be clearly wrong if it happened. there have been dozens of detected copies of various programs, I am certain there are many undetected copies. Each one that is exposed is one less impediment for beginners to overcome.
Bob, there is a big difference between the Berliner accusation and the Hyatt&Theron&Wegner%Schmidt one. That was after a tournament made in disbelief, we due respect to Berliner IMO, but what you here are doing is wrong even if you get the wanted result, this is what Ed told you. I didnt see your contradiction. Also because in the negative case with a verdict against you, you remain with someone who was a cloner himself and someone who stands under a serious allegation himself. And you knew that. Unbelievable. Why do you do that sport as academic? Please get out of the campaign, these guys wont bring you laureates but Vas is of your own mind somehow. Why do you prefer to collaborate with a proven cloner who goes here for moral lectures? Bob, not the questions you all put up do stink but it's the collaboration with wrongdoers, to say the least. How can wrongdoer make a decent case, decent case meaning innocent until proven guilty and all the ethical standards? Bob, stop that!
With your campaign you dont prevent small fishes to sin but you awake those who want to show their psychophatic delusions. As you know McCarthy was nuts.
So this is basically everything taken from Ed's message. Please talk to him, ask him how to proceed. Be a good role model, please.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
John wrote:I have to agree with Bob on this ... not even our cat fears me.
I have followed this newsgroup for many years ... enjoying it, but posting very seldom.
I only started posting on this one topic, because the departure from traditional scientific norms was (IMHO) so marked, that it risked harming a community that I value.
I don't fear anyone in this kind of technical discussion. I have spent a lifetime in this specific area and know it well. And that is not meant to be insulting in any way, it is just a simple statement of fact. I look at more C to assembly translations in a week than most of the contributors to this thread have seen in their lifetime, because I want to continually find the most efficient way to write C code to produce the fastest possible assembly language. I teach an assembly language course every semester, where we often write programs in C in class, and then translate them to assembly language. It is not a "creative art". It is a simple, well-defined process.
The problem here is that there are several complex processes to deal with that take time. Going from raw machine language back to C is a pain. Because you have to understand what the machine language is doing, something made more difficult without variable and procedure names. But it can be done given some time. And then there is the semantical equivalence analysis. Again, well-understood, but time-consuming.
If simple order issues were all that one needed to break semantic equivalence, students would have free rein to plagiarize code and then change variable names, convert a few lines here into a function, re-order some lines over here than have no data/name/control dependences that prevent such, and voila', a new program is born. Except that we have to catch these, and do, regularly. It is less frequent today, because for me, "the word has gotten out."
So, it is a dead-accurate process, but also a dead-slow process. Can't help the latter.
Bob, who has ever doubted that? But I for one could see that Ed for example had a clear perception of what this here all meant to harm Vas no matter if you plus your teamsters were right or wrong, and this is something you seem to have difficulties to understand. You would surely see it differently if you were the one who were defamed. No, you'll reply we defame nobody, but Bob, Ed has exactly shown why Vas is already damaged right now. I wished an academic like you would also have a minimal understanding of such facts. Because you havent, I cant completely call you innocent in that whole campaign. Of course questions of war are much more important actually but with the same negative result for the USA... What is only going on over there? Excuse me in case I've missed your apologies somewhere.
Rolf. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. Do you remember Berliner's public protest after the 1986 WCCC tournament? I do not believe my reputation was damaged one scintilla once the facts came out, were investigated, and the ICCA published the findings. Berliner looked a bit silly, but that was his problem and not mine.
My interest is simply "was rybka derived from fruit?" A "yes or no" is all I want to see. I don't see any remedy as being able to correct that, even though it would be clearly wrong if it happened. there have been dozens of detected copies of various programs, I am certain there are many undetected copies. Each one that is exposed is one less impediment for beginners to overcome.
Bob, there is a big difference between the Berliner accusation and the Hyatt&Theron&Wegner%Schmidt one. That was after a tournament made in disbelief, we due respect to Berliner IMO, but what you here are doing is wrong even if you get the wanted result, this is what Ed told you. I didnt see your contradiction. Also because in the negative case with a verdict against you, you remain with someone who was a cloner himself and someone who stands under a serious allegation himself. And you knew that. Unbelievable. Why do you do that sport as academic? Please get out of the campaign, these guys wont bring you laureates but Vas is of your own mind somehow. Why do you prefer to collaborate with a proven cloner who goes here for moral lectures? Bob, not the questions you all put up do stink but it's the collaboration with wrongdoers, to say the least. How can wrongdoer make a decent case, decent case meaning innocent until proven guilty and all the ethical standards? Bob, stop that!
With your campaign you dont prevent small fishes to sin but you awake those who want to show their psychophatic delusions. As you know McCarthy was nuts.
So this is basically everything taken from Ed's message. Please talk to him, ask him how to proceed. Be a good role model, please.
Hi Rolf,
A part of an academic life is to be honest and to pursue the truth.
It is exactly what Bob is doing.
At the end of the investigation, we´ll have more than one possible interpretation of investigation findings. There would be the right place for your clam, IMHO.
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."
A part of an academic life is to be honest and to pursue the truth.
It is exactly what Bob is doing.
At the end of the investigation, we´ll have more than one possible interpretation of investigation findings. There would be the right place for your clam, IMHO.
Of course, but academics should be experts but no judges and the police. If you have enough material you can take the legal path but you cant do it with lynching (well the virtual version of course). I am strictly against pre or self-justice. This is valid also for academics. I know that you must agree here.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
John wrote:I have to agree with Bob on this ... not even our cat fears me.
I have followed this newsgroup for many years ... enjoying it, but posting very seldom.
I only started posting on this one topic, because the departure from traditional scientific norms was (IMHO) so marked, that it risked harming a community that I value.
I don't fear anyone in this kind of technical discussion. I have spent a lifetime in this specific area and know it well. And that is not meant to be insulting in any way, it is just a simple statement of fact. I look at more C to assembly translations in a week than most of the contributors to this thread have seen in their lifetime, because I want to continually find the most efficient way to write C code to produce the fastest possible assembly language. I teach an assembly language course every semester, where we often write programs in C in class, and then translate them to assembly language. It is not a "creative art". It is a simple, well-defined process.
The problem here is that there are several complex processes to deal with that take time. Going from raw machine language back to C is a pain. Because you have to understand what the machine language is doing, something made more difficult without variable and procedure names. But it can be done given some time. And then there is the semantical equivalence analysis. Again, well-understood, but time-consuming.
If simple order issues were all that one needed to break semantic equivalence, students would have free rein to plagiarize code and then change variable names, convert a few lines here into a function, re-order some lines over here than have no data/name/control dependences that prevent such, and voila', a new program is born. Except that we have to catch these, and do, regularly. It is less frequent today, because for me, "the word has gotten out."
So, it is a dead-accurate process, but also a dead-slow process. Can't help the latter.
Bob, who has ever doubted that? But I for one could see that Ed for example had a clear perception of what this here all meant to harm Vas no matter if you plus your teamsters were right or wrong, and this is something you seem to have difficulties to understand. You would surely see it differently if you were the one who were defamed. No, you'll reply we defame nobody, but Bob, Ed has exactly shown why Vas is already damaged right now. I wished an academic like you would also have a minimal understanding of such facts. Because you havent, I cant completely call you innocent in that whole campaign. Of course questions of war are much more important actually but with the same negative result for the USA... What is only going on over there? Excuse me in case I've missed your apologies somewhere.
Rolf. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. Do you remember Berliner's public protest after the 1986 WCCC tournament? I do not believe my reputation was damaged one scintilla once the facts came out, were investigated, and the ICCA published the findings. Berliner looked a bit silly, but that was his problem and not mine.
My interest is simply "was rybka derived from fruit?" A "yes or no" is all I want to see. I don't see any remedy as being able to correct that, even though it would be clearly wrong if it happened. there have been dozens of detected copies of various programs, I am certain there are many undetected copies. Each one that is exposed is one less impediment for beginners to overcome.
Bob, there is a big difference between the Berliner accusation and the Hyatt&Theron&Wegner%Schmidt one. That was after a tournament made in disbelief, we due respect to Berliner IMO, but what you here are doing is wrong even if you get the wanted result, this is what Ed told you. I didnt see your contradiction. Also because in the negative case with a verdict against you, you remain with someone who was a cloner himself and someone who stands under a serious allegation himself. And you knew that. Unbelievable. Why do you do that sport as academic? Please get out of the campaign, these guys wont bring you laureates but Vas is of your own mind somehow. Why do you prefer to collaborate with a proven cloner who goes here for moral lectures? Bob, not the questions you all put up do stink but it's the collaboration with wrongdoers, to say the least. How can wrongdoer make a decent case, decent case meaning innocent until proven guilty and all the ethical standards? Bob, stop that!
With your campaign you dont prevent small fishes to sin but you awake those who want to show their psychophatic delusions. As you know McCarthy was nuts.
So this is basically everything taken from Ed's message. Please talk to him, ask him how to proceed. Be a good role model, please.
If something improper was done, with "was" being the operative word here, then it is _never_ wrong to expose it. At the least it will serve as a deterrent for this being repeated.
As far as collaboration with wrongdoers, I have a good friend that served time in prison. He made a mistake. He paid dearly for it. And he has moved on. Is this somehow a flawed personality trait on my part??
John wrote:I have to agree with Bob on this ... not even our cat fears me.
I have followed this newsgroup for many years ... enjoying it, but posting very seldom.
I only started posting on this one topic, because the departure from traditional scientific norms was (IMHO) so marked, that it risked harming a community that I value.
I don't fear anyone in this kind of technical discussion. I have spent a lifetime in this specific area and know it well. And that is not meant to be insulting in any way, it is just a simple statement of fact. I look at more C to assembly translations in a week than most of the contributors to this thread have seen in their lifetime, because I want to continually find the most efficient way to write C code to produce the fastest possible assembly language. I teach an assembly language course every semester, where we often write programs in C in class, and then translate them to assembly language. It is not a "creative art". It is a simple, well-defined process.
The problem here is that there are several complex processes to deal with that take time. Going from raw machine language back to C is a pain. Because you have to understand what the machine language is doing, something made more difficult without variable and procedure names. But it can be done given some time. And then there is the semantical equivalence analysis. Again, well-understood, but time-consuming.
If simple order issues were all that one needed to break semantic equivalence, students would have free rein to plagiarize code and then change variable names, convert a few lines here into a function, re-order some lines over here than have no data/name/control dependences that prevent such, and voila', a new program is born. Except that we have to catch these, and do, regularly. It is less frequent today, because for me, "the word has gotten out."
So, it is a dead-accurate process, but also a dead-slow process. Can't help the latter.
Bob, who has ever doubted that? But I for one could see that Ed for example had a clear perception of what this here all meant to harm Vas no matter if you plus your teamsters were right or wrong, and this is something you seem to have difficulties to understand. You would surely see it differently if you were the one who were defamed. No, you'll reply we defame nobody, but Bob, Ed has exactly shown why Vas is already damaged right now. I wished an academic like you would also have a minimal understanding of such facts. Because you havent, I cant completely call you innocent in that whole campaign. Of course questions of war are much more important actually but with the same negative result for the USA... What is only going on over there? Excuse me in case I've missed your apologies somewhere.
Rolf. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. Do you remember Berliner's public protest after the 1986 WCCC tournament? I do not believe my reputation was damaged one scintilla once the facts came out, were investigated, and the ICCA published the findings. Berliner looked a bit silly, but that was his problem and not mine.
My interest is simply "was rybka derived from fruit?" A "yes or no" is all I want to see. I don't see any remedy as being able to correct that, even though it would be clearly wrong if it happened. there have been dozens of detected copies of various programs, I am certain there are many undetected copies. Each one that is exposed is one less impediment for beginners to overcome.
Bob, there is a big difference between the Berliner accusation and the Hyatt&Theron&Wegner%Schmidt one. That was after a tournament made in disbelief, we due respect to Berliner IMO, but what you here are doing is wrong even if you get the wanted result, this is what Ed told you. I didnt see your contradiction. Also because in the negative case with a verdict against you, you remain with someone who was a cloner himself and someone who stands under a serious allegation himself. And you knew that. Unbelievable. Why do you do that sport as academic? Please get out of the campaign, these guys wont bring you laureates but Vas is of your own mind somehow. Why do you prefer to collaborate with a proven cloner who goes here for moral lectures? Bob, not the questions you all put up do stink but it's the collaboration with wrongdoers, to say the least. How can wrongdoer make a decent case, decent case meaning innocent until proven guilty and all the ethical standards? Bob, stop that!
With your campaign you dont prevent small fishes to sin but you awake those who want to show their psychophatic delusions. As you know McCarthy was nuts.
So this is basically everything taken from Ed's message. Please talk to him, ask him how to proceed. Be a good role model, please.
If something improper was done, with "was" being the operative word here, then it is _never_ wrong to expose it. At the least it will serve as a deterrent for this being repeated.
As far as collaboration with wrongdoers, I have a good friend that served time in prison. He made a mistake. He paid dearly for it. And he has moved on. Is this somehow a flawed personality trait on my part??
Certainly not, Bob, but if you have a moral debate it would look suboptimal if a former criminal would act in a public campaign.
If he's an expert, you could take his analyses and reflections but to put such a person against a complete innocent is dangerously leading to a self-justice. To answer your question: yes, a morally having failed person cant be taken as a moral instance, no way. IMO.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Eh? Please provide a quote. I quoted the entire post I responded to. It was the first post in this thread. So I am now somehow supposed to "read between the lines" or "read the minds" of posters?
I reread the initial post -- now it looks ambiguous, it could be interpreted either way.
If I'm wrong about his intentions then I apologize to you. And if the original poster thinks that I am "dangerous" -- Boo!
My interpretation was "you should beware of this guy..."
But then I factored in the reputation that author has with me, and it became somewhat like idle chit-chat.
I'm only interested in what really happened, all this nonsense about envy and such is ridiculous. I never beat Hsu (chiptest/deep thought/deep blue) in a computer chess game. We remained friends throughout his chess career, and we shared information and ideas all the time. Ditto for ken and Belle. we were absolutely "fierce rivals" OTB. we were absolutely friends all the time. So for me, envy/jealously/etc simply are meaningless, at least with respect to computer chess.
If I seem a bit "short" at times, it is only because this has been going on for a _long_ times, with the same arguments given over and over, almost all of which are not based on sound reasoning. You've even seen students talk about how simple programs can be way different and faculty regularly detect plagiarism. Until you have "been there, done that, and got the T-shirt" it is difficult to understand. English teachers are quite good and detecting copied text, even when it comes from obscure sources. this is a similar skill, that requires some experience to develop.
My post- so last....last warning. Bob, if you dont come at these guys with more than smoke and mirrors, waving a phd. and babbling about your past- they will pick your bones clean. One last time: You havent a clue who you are dealing with.
Eh? Please provide a quote. I quoted the entire post I responded to. It was the first post in this thread. So I am now somehow supposed to "read between the lines" or "read the minds" of posters?
I reread the initial post -- now it looks ambiguous, it could be interpreted either way.
If I'm wrong about his intentions then I apologize to you. And if the original poster thinks that I am "dangerous" -- Boo!
My interpretation was "you should beware of this guy..."
But then I factored in the reputation that author has with me, and it became somewhat like idle chit-chat.
I'm only interested in what really happened, all this nonsense about envy and such is ridiculous. I never beat Hsu (chiptest/deep thought/deep blue) in a computer chess game. We remained friends throughout his chess career, and we shared information and ideas all the time. Ditto for ken and Belle. we were absolutely "fierce rivals" OTB. we were absolutely friends all the time. So for me, envy/jealously/etc simply are meaningless, at least with respect to computer chess.
If I seem a bit "short" at times, it is only because this has been going on for a _long_ times, with the same arguments given over and over, almost all of which are not based on sound reasoning. You've even seen students talk about how simple programs can be way different and faculty regularly detect plagiarism. Until you have "been there, done that, and got the T-shirt" it is difficult to understand. English teachers are quite good and detecting copied text, even when it comes from obscure sources. this is a similar skill, that requires some experience to develop.
My post- so last....last warning. Bob, if you dont come at these guys with more than smoke and mirrors, waving a phd. and babbling about your past- they will pick your bones clean. One last time: You havent a clue who you are dealing with.
I have not seen any "picking" yet. I'm not using smoke and mirrors, I am using what can be found in _any_ good book on compilers.
So please _don't_ come back unless you have something substantive to offer. I am certain I am not dealing with people that I have dealt with in the past. Seymour Cray. Gene Amdahl. Peter Denning. I doubt they stand taller than those guys, not that that matters one bit. I really don't care _who_ I am dealing with in topics like this. All that matters is _what_ they have to say or offer as rebuttal. So far it has been somewhat informative discussions, but nothing new has been offered yet.
BTW. As far as "have no idea who they are". I do have an idea as to who / what they are _not_. They are not "compiler types". That much is pretty obvious from the discussions. And that is the kind of knowledge needed in the current discussion/analysis. I would be utterly surprised if either turns out to be a true computer scientist in a CS department at some university. Otherwise they would already be neck-deep in dealing with plagiarism...
geots wrote:
One last time: You havent a clue who you are dealing with.
why all the mystery here George?
why dont these guys simply announce who they are?
Hyatt is well known,so is CT,CW ,Vas..etcetc
you certainly dont hide who you are..neither does Graham ..neither do i
let them announce themselves in the light of day and describe their qualifications.. rather then lurk under the cover of darkness
