![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Banned for life wrote, "As I stated, there is no law requiring attribution of scientific results, this is not done in a commercial setting, and your reference to getting 'caught by the police' is downright silly."
"this is not done in a commercial setting" so you advocate misleading and scamming consumers with uncredited, unsourced statements? how interesting that commercial marketing endeavors are not required to cite valid scientific results according to you, therefore it's fair game to post whatever research data without citing. lol
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm281333.htm
"FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have issued seven letters to companies warning them that they are selling illegal homeopathic HCG weight-loss drugs that have not been approved by FDA, and that make unsupported claims."
your assertion that "there is no law" is ridiculous. if you agree that it's "silly" for the police to carry out the law, then you're saying your own comment was silly. if a law is unenforceable without police, then what good is a law or an absence of a law? if your advice is to say, "it's not against the law. it's fine," to the general public or to scientists or to students, then that shows your contempt for proper crediting.
you can do proper research, verify the statements, not claim others' work for your own, etc.
it's simply silly for you to say, "it's not against the law," and then state my paraphrasing of your statement to be "silly".
this shows your lawyerly angle to put a spin on any argument to your own favor. is that why you call youself "banned for life"?
"this is not done in a commercial setting" so you advocate misleading and scamming consumers with uncredited, unsourced statements? how interesting that commercial marketing endeavors are not required to cite valid scientific results according to you, therefore it's fair game to post whatever research data without citing. lol
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm281333.htm
"FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have issued seven letters to companies warning them that they are selling illegal homeopathic HCG weight-loss drugs that have not been approved by FDA, and that make unsupported claims."
your assertion that "there is no law" is ridiculous. if you agree that it's "silly" for the police to carry out the law, then you're saying your own comment was silly. if a law is unenforceable without police, then what good is a law or an absence of a law? if your advice is to say, "it's not against the law. it's fine," to the general public or to scientists or to students, then that shows your contempt for proper crediting.
you can do proper research, verify the statements, not claim others' work for your own, etc.
it's simply silly for you to say, "it's not against the law," and then state my paraphrasing of your statement to be "silly".
this shows your lawyerly angle to put a spin on any argument to your own favor. is that why you call youself "banned for life"?
Your comments are totally incomprehensible. If this was your intent, congratulations! 
You implied that Rybka, a commercial engine, had some kind of legal requirement to site scientific results. As a guy who reads through dozens of papers every day, pulling out results for use in products without ever giving attribution, I can assure you that this is not only perfectly legal, but ubiquitous to boot. My customers generally don't care why the stuff they buy works or doesn't work. They just want it to work as well as possible. I would assume the same is true for commercial chess engine developers.
Then, out of left field, comes this:
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm281333.htm
"FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have issued seven letters to companies warning them that they are selling illegal homeopathic HCG weight-loss drugs that have not been approved by FDA, and that make unsupported claims."
I have absolutely no clue what this has to do with our discussion. Is this supposed to relate somehow to Rybka? If so, I just don't get it. Rybka is marketed as a strong chess engine for analysis purposes. I see no misrepresentation there at all.
you can do proper research, verify the statements, not claim others' work for your own, etc.
Research is certainly not the exclusive domain of academia. If you are working in academia, or publishing papers, you are expected to give attribution to others for their work. If you are working on a commercial product, it is perfectly OK to grab results in the public domain and use them as you see fit.
Your statement you won't get caught by the police struck me as silly because the police just don't get involved in this type of IP dispute.
is that why you call youself "banned for life"?
I sort of like this nick, but I'm angry that David Levy has used it without attribution!
You implied that Rybka, a commercial engine, had some kind of legal requirement to site scientific results. As a guy who reads through dozens of papers every day, pulling out results for use in products without ever giving attribution, I can assure you that this is not only perfectly legal, but ubiquitous to boot. My customers generally don't care why the stuff they buy works or doesn't work. They just want it to work as well as possible. I would assume the same is true for commercial chess engine developers.
Then, out of left field, comes this:
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm281333.htm
"FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have issued seven letters to companies warning them that they are selling illegal homeopathic HCG weight-loss drugs that have not been approved by FDA, and that make unsupported claims."
I have absolutely no clue what this has to do with our discussion. Is this supposed to relate somehow to Rybka? If so, I just don't get it. Rybka is marketed as a strong chess engine for analysis purposes. I see no misrepresentation there at all.
you can do proper research, verify the statements, not claim others' work for your own, etc.
Research is certainly not the exclusive domain of academia. If you are working in academia, or publishing papers, you are expected to give attribution to others for their work. If you are working on a commercial product, it is perfectly OK to grab results in the public domain and use them as you see fit.
Your statement you won't get caught by the police struck me as silly because the police just don't get involved in this type of IP dispute.
is that why you call youself "banned for life"?
I sort of like this nick, but I'm angry that David Levy has used it without attribution!
banned for life says, "You implied that Rybka, a commercial engine, had some kind of legal requirement to site scientific results." please quote me where i implied such. when did i say the words "vasik has a legal requirement and must pay restitution"? i was simply comparing what is standard in the scientific world to this computer chess controversy. i was also following the sub-topic line of "being involved in medical research" that you said. i can compare sports, pizza hut, etc. to rybka if i wanted.
banned for life says, "Your statement you won't get caught by the police struck me as silly because the police just don't get involved in this type of IP dispute." if there is a court-mandated cease-and-desist order, the police can very well go and shut down your server over unauthorized use of intellectual property. this is relatively rare i'm assuming, but a person with a badge and a gun can enforce laws.
if i say to a hospital patient, "you have to take your time and chew your food thoroughly to minimize the risk of choking and to reduce the chance of indigestion." banned for life will say, "You are wrong! There is no law in the United States about that. You can eat as fast as you want if the food tastes good. Don't act like there are silly food police at the restaurant when you are eating. You have to chew slowly only when you have asthma."
if there was a road-spill of styrofoam cups from an overturned truck, and i say to a driver, "please slow down. you have to drive cautiously and avoid a car accident." banned for life will say, "Wrong! There's no law that forces you to drive carefully over cups. Stop being silly. You have to slow down only when there's ice covering the street."
if you want to continue this line of reasoning, feel free to post more on it.
banned for life says, "Your statement you won't get caught by the police struck me as silly because the police just don't get involved in this type of IP dispute." if there is a court-mandated cease-and-desist order, the police can very well go and shut down your server over unauthorized use of intellectual property. this is relatively rare i'm assuming, but a person with a badge and a gun can enforce laws.
if i say to a hospital patient, "you have to take your time and chew your food thoroughly to minimize the risk of choking and to reduce the chance of indigestion." banned for life will say, "You are wrong! There is no law in the United States about that. You can eat as fast as you want if the food tastes good. Don't act like there are silly food police at the restaurant when you are eating. You have to chew slowly only when you have asthma."
if there was a road-spill of styrofoam cups from an overturned truck, and i say to a driver, "please slow down. you have to drive cautiously and avoid a car accident." banned for life will say, "Wrong! There's no law that forces you to drive carefully over cups. Stop being silly. You have to slow down only when there's ice covering the street."
if you want to continue this line of reasoning, feel free to post more on it.
Actually, not only do commercial enterprises have to "cite sources" they have to pay royalties to use things they "take".
Commercial enterprises don't have to site sources or pay royalties on unprotected IP in the public domain, which was the context of the discussion.
banned for life wrote, "don't have to site sources or pay royalties on unprotected IP in the public domain, which was the context of the discussion," and "not a requirement for being involved in medical research...," and "attribution in scientific research."
when was the "context" of "public domain" the only topic of discussion?
of course free stuff is free. everyone knows that. you made general statements using "medical research" and "scientific research" which would mean both public and copyrighted works.
when was the "context" of "public domain" the only topic of discussion?
of course free stuff is free. everyone knows that. you made general statements using "medical research" and "scientific research" which would mean both public and copyrighted works.
There is no connection between "free" and "copyright". Publications are frequently in both categories.
What you seem to fail to realize is that while the publication is protected by copyright, any results (aka ideas) are not protected (by copyright, although they may be protected by patent). So in many fields, it is routine to go through publications, take results from them, and use them in product development without attribution. I do this every day, as do all my competitors...
What you seem to fail to realize is that while the publication is protected by copyright, any results (aka ideas) are not protected (by copyright, although they may be protected by patent). So in many fields, it is routine to go through publications, take results from them, and use them in product development without attribution. I do this every day, as do all my competitors...
yes, that's called "learning". apparently you fail to realize that i don't fail to understand that simple concept.
an employee at burger king can eat a big mac and then copy mcdonald's burger... lol
it's called copying, learning, reverse engineering, or inspiration. a company may even wish to keep proprietary information within a limited circle of employees. for example, the secret formula for coca-cola.
you made a sweeping statement about citation, and now you claim i somehow "fail to realize".
apparently you work for a for-profit organization that is willing to copy competitor ideas to sell a product, and somehow this capitalistic competition is a reflection for common scientific practice at universities...
an employee at burger king can eat a big mac and then copy mcdonald's burger... lol
it's called copying, learning, reverse engineering, or inspiration. a company may even wish to keep proprietary information within a limited circle of employees. for example, the secret formula for coca-cola.
you made a sweeping statement about citation, and now you claim i somehow "fail to realize".
apparently you work for a for-profit organization that is willing to copy competitor ideas to sell a product, and somehow this capitalistic competition is a reflection for common scientific practice at universities...
i bet you that citations at an informal level are bandied about internally by employees who share ideas.
certainly a boss might have an interest on the origins of a paper with claims and data copied off scientific journals. even if there is no public disclosure, the employee should have an outline of a new product idea, background information, cost analysis, etc.
lol, at no citations needed therefore i'm wrong and i misunderstand.
certainly a boss might have an interest on the origins of a paper with claims and data copied off scientific journals. even if there is no public disclosure, the employee should have an outline of a new product idea, background information, cost analysis, etc.
lol, at no citations needed therefore i'm wrong and i misunderstand.
apparently you work for a for-profit organization that is willing to copy competitor ideas to sell a product, and somehow this capitalistic competition is a reflection for common scientific practice at universities...
I have never discussed what happens at universities with you. I run a for-profit corporation and sell products using ideas from a variety of sources which certainly include competitor's products. So does Vas. There is nothing newsworthy here.
I have never discussed what happens at universities with you. I run a for-profit corporation and sell products using ideas from a variety of sources which certainly include competitor's products. So does Vas. There is nothing newsworthy here.
Date 2012-01-24 16:38
I will absolutely guarantee you that doctors are at "the top of the food chain" in designing these projects. To believe otherwise is utterly ridiculous. Just review a few patents. See who holds them, and who has cut a deal with whom to obtain exclusive manufacturing rights.
Me: Or a chemist, or a software engineer, or a million other things. Do you think only doctors are designing medical imaging devices? Pharmaceuticals? It doesn't work that way.
You: I will absolutely guarantee you that doctors are at "the top of the food chain" in designing these projects. To believe otherwise is utterly ridiculous. Just review a few patents. See who holds them, and who has cut a deal with whom to obtain exclusive manufacturing rights.
As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about. Let's take GE Healthcare, one of the worlds largest and most successful medical technology companies, as an example. Here is a link to their management team:
http://www.gehealthcare.com/usen/about/exec_team.html
Does this look like there are " doctors are at "the top of the food chain" in designing these projects."? Didn't think so. You are clueless as usual.
You: I will absolutely guarantee you that doctors are at "the top of the food chain" in designing these projects. To believe otherwise is utterly ridiculous. Just review a few patents. See who holds them, and who has cut a deal with whom to obtain exclusive manufacturing rights.
As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about. Let's take GE Healthcare, one of the worlds largest and most successful medical technology companies, as an example. Here is a link to their management team:
http://www.gehealthcare.com/usen/about/exec_team.html
Does this look like there are " doctors are at "the top of the food chain" in designing these projects."? Didn't think so. You are clueless as usual.
I clearly said what I thought. Docs are at the TOP of the food chain. The "management team" are not the ones driving the development. They are the ones in place to make the company profitable. You really don't understand actual "research" in addition to all the other things you don't understand. Research is not "writing code" or "combining a lot of parts together to see if they form something useful."
You're clueless and a very slow learner. Perhaps you are suggesting that GE Healthcare isn't involved in medical research? Or perhaps you are too dense to realize that the development at this company is not exclusively, or even primarily, driven by MDs. You're just a clown with an incredibly bloated self image.
I am suggesting that DOCS direct the research, not the company management. But I have actually worked with docs on research projects, so I have a pretty good understanding on how this is done. You have much to learn about the non-business-programming world...
talk about your favorite term "stuck on stupid"...
talk about your favorite term "stuck on stupid"...
![[pe]](/mwf/v12/flags/pe.png "Peru")
You are right bob, doctors tell scientists what is needed when it comes to medical technology. Scientists of many specialties then design the product to match these specifications. To say otherwise simply is pure ignorance
Never was any doubt about what the docs do. I'm surrounded by them.
As an observer I wonder why you keep replying to non-chess engine programmers about issues they are not qualified to discuss.
If your counterpart does not know the basics why validate their opinions with a response?
If your counterpart does not know the basics why validate their opinions with a response?
i don't think there's any reason to respond to banned for life anymore.
he's just a public relations spin doctor for the rybka team without any chess programming knowledge. he's biased towards rybka and has posted in this forum for years before the icga scandal broke.
i started as a neutral layman who wants to learn and appreciates the time and technical posts that dr. hyatt has provided. i'm sure he's busy with his own academic schedule.
i think hyatt is the best professor in the world to learn chess programming from because of his history and expertise. granted, the chess community is very small in comparison to other academic pursuits.
he's just a public relations spin doctor for the rybka team without any chess programming knowledge. he's biased towards rybka and has posted in this forum for years before the icga scandal broke.
i started as a neutral layman who wants to learn and appreciates the time and technical posts that dr. hyatt has provided. i'm sure he's busy with his own academic schedule.
i think hyatt is the best professor in the world to learn chess programming from because of his history and expertise. granted, the chess community is very small in comparison to other academic pursuits.
i don't think there's any reason to respond to banned for life anymore.
Thanks! This would be much appreciated!
he's biased towards rybka and has posted in this forum for years before the icga scandal broke.
Yup. I was posting here back when we had an intelligent crew, before the trolls showed up earlier this year.
Thanks! This would be much appreciated!
he's biased towards rybka and has posted in this forum for years before the icga scandal broke.
Yup. I was posting here back when we had an intelligent crew, before the trolls showed up earlier this year.
OK, so Bob stuck on stupid Hyatt thinks that GE Healthcare is not involved in medical research. You are one pig headed moron! It's really a shame that we have idiots like you posting on this forum.
No, the REAL shame is that idiots like you try to purport themselves to be experts in all things... And you are particularly adept at using the straw-man argument. Show me ONE quote where I said "Ge Healthcare is not involved in medical research." I said "docs are at the top of the process for designing things for healthcare." You supposedly understand software engineering. The Docs are the "ultimate customers" for all things medical. They develop the specs for what they want, NOT "GE Healthcare management."
Jeez, you are REALLY "out there".
Jeez, you are REALLY "out there".
![[ro]](/mwf/v12/flags/ro.png "Romania")
Bob sweetheart,
You are a god damn jealous old man. If I were you, I would keep a low profile(aka shut the f. up), and let those giants(Vas first place and then the rest of them) to work. Somehow I respect Anthony Cozzie so much. He managed to create something competitive. In the meantime you managed to create only scandal. If you are that good as you claim, go ahead and create a ulta strong crafty. By the way.... Do you have a pig head like I've read one post earlier?
You are a god damn jealous old man. If I were you, I would keep a low profile(aka shut the f. up), and let those giants(Vas first place and then the rest of them) to work. Somehow I respect Anthony Cozzie so much. He managed to create something competitive. In the meantime you managed to create only scandal. If you are that good as you claim, go ahead and create a ulta strong crafty. By the way.... Do you have a pig head like I've read one post earlier?
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
the REAL shame is that idiots like you try to purport themselves to be experts in all things...
Talking to your mirror again?
Talking to your mirror again?
You're very slow at picking things up, so I'll take you through this step by step...
GE Healthcare, a 17 billion dollar developer of medical diagnostic equipment, has no MDs in the executive suite. When I say that to people that I work with, they know what this means. It means that GE Healthcare doesn't employ many MDs. Why? How many MDs are going to want to work with a company that doesn't promote MDs to the e-suite? Answer? Not many.
Same story at other competitors in this market; Siemens, Varian, etc. (Siemens has one MD because they bought his company. This is still zero incentive for any MD to want to join Siemens as an employee).
Why don't these companies employ lots of MDs? Simple. It generally takes at least five years, and usually closer to ten, to develop a new product. This development effort will require million of dollars. So the first hurdle is financial; Is there a good case for making money after development? Technical risk and community acceptance are components of this decision, but it's mainly a financial decision; How long will it take to develop; How much money; How much development risk; How many are likely to be sold; Etc. If the product doesn't look good at this point, that's the end of the road. If it does pass muster, it will be years and millions of dollars before there is anything for the medical community to evaluate.
The MDs component is back loaded. MDs will have a leading role in clinical trials, writing papers, gaining regulatory approval, establishing CPT codes and reimbursement levels, and helping to market the products to the medical community. But years and millions of dollars will be spent before any of these things happen.
I also work on medical devices, most recently assisting with a proposal for developing an ultrasonic sensor capable of non-intrusively measuring RV volume and pressure with the same accuracy as an MRI scan. I'm sure the initial requirement came from an MD somewhere, but this person won't be involved in the development effort until there is some sort of prototype to be demonstrated.
Your "stuck-on-stupid" moment came when you failed to realize that medical research occurs in many different forms. If all that is required is a clinical trial, MDs can lead from start to finish. If new technology must be developed, a different cast of characters will generally be required.
GE Healthcare, a 17 billion dollar developer of medical diagnostic equipment, has no MDs in the executive suite. When I say that to people that I work with, they know what this means. It means that GE Healthcare doesn't employ many MDs. Why? How many MDs are going to want to work with a company that doesn't promote MDs to the e-suite? Answer? Not many.
Same story at other competitors in this market; Siemens, Varian, etc. (Siemens has one MD because they bought his company. This is still zero incentive for any MD to want to join Siemens as an employee).
Why don't these companies employ lots of MDs? Simple. It generally takes at least five years, and usually closer to ten, to develop a new product. This development effort will require million of dollars. So the first hurdle is financial; Is there a good case for making money after development? Technical risk and community acceptance are components of this decision, but it's mainly a financial decision; How long will it take to develop; How much money; How much development risk; How many are likely to be sold; Etc. If the product doesn't look good at this point, that's the end of the road. If it does pass muster, it will be years and millions of dollars before there is anything for the medical community to evaluate.
The MDs component is back loaded. MDs will have a leading role in clinical trials, writing papers, gaining regulatory approval, establishing CPT codes and reimbursement levels, and helping to market the products to the medical community. But years and millions of dollars will be spent before any of these things happen.
I also work on medical devices, most recently assisting with a proposal for developing an ultrasonic sensor capable of non-intrusively measuring RV volume and pressure with the same accuracy as an MRI scan. I'm sure the initial requirement came from an MD somewhere, but this person won't be involved in the development effort until there is some sort of prototype to be demonstrated.
Your "stuck-on-stupid" moment came when you failed to realize that medical research occurs in many different forms. If all that is required is a clinical trial, MDs can lead from start to finish. If new technology must be developed, a different cast of characters will generally be required.
Of course they don't. But they also do NOT just go out and start building some sort of medical device, whether it be a new type of MRI or CT scanner, or whatever, UNLESS a doctor tells them that such a device is needed, here is what it needs to be able to do, etc...
If you believe otherwise, you are sadly mistaken.
I did not say the docs were "employees" of the company. I said "the docs drive the development." Whether as consultants, or they present research proposals to GE, etc. I can cite several such proposals that have been done by docs at UAB. You can find them easily enough. The docs know what they need, they go to companies that have the engineering expertise to pull it off. Newer things, such as the Da Vinci robotic surgery device is under continual development, because the docs keep coming up with ideas that make it more effective.
Hope that is clear enough...
You are hung up (again) on just the business end. Those companies don't do the "if we build it, they will use it." It is an inverse model of "what do you need, we will build it.."
If you believe otherwise, you are sadly mistaken.
I did not say the docs were "employees" of the company. I said "the docs drive the development." Whether as consultants, or they present research proposals to GE, etc. I can cite several such proposals that have been done by docs at UAB. You can find them easily enough. The docs know what they need, they go to companies that have the engineering expertise to pull it off. Newer things, such as the Da Vinci robotic surgery device is under continual development, because the docs keep coming up with ideas that make it more effective.
Hope that is clear enough...
You are hung up (again) on just the business end. Those companies don't do the "if we build it, they will use it." It is an inverse model of "what do you need, we will build it.."
I've read all 6 pages on this topic. Fun stuff. Keep the entertainment coming!
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill