![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Oh! I check the UAH data all the time, but I didn't realize that January's data were already posted (they usually wait until the middle of the next month) and that it was that cool--though I knew that Europe and Asia were getting slammed while we've been enjoying a non-winter. I recently ran a 10-year linear regression for each of the past 10 years, and while there was a nice trend from 1982-1991 and an even greater one from 1992 (Pinatubo eruption) to 2001 (which included the strongest El Nino in recorded history in its second half), the trend from 2002 to 2011 was nearly dead flat (0.03 degrees per decade), with a correlation coefficient of 0.06, while 0.3 is considered necessary to be "statistically significant" as opposed to being potentially due to randomness. In fact, plugging in the new data for January 2012 and redoing the fit. In order to get a statistically significant warming trend, you have to go all the way back to December 1995. Thus, I think that it would be correct to argue that the planet has not experienced any statistically significant warming for the past 16 years. The new data have a warming trend of 0.020 degrees C per decade, and with an even lower correlation coefficient of 0.037 (in other words, even more random noise).
It was actually only recently that I decided to check this with linear regression fits to see the correlation coefficients, and I was surprised to find out how low they've been lately (though still fairly high if you extend all the way back to 1978, near the end of the last major long-term cooling trend). I think that we're now at or past a peak similar to what was experienced during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, and that there is a pretty decent chance of a 20- to 30-year general cooling trend, after averaging over short-term solar cycles (a peak of which we're now entering). I had previously been using these techniques to analyze daily stock market variations (e.g. how does market behavior from 10 AM to 11 AM affect market behavior from 2 PM to 3 PM, etc.), where I obtained some very interesting results. I figured that lots of other people are doing the same thing as me, and they are helping to effect these results, as well as changing certain trends that I've noticed.
It was actually only recently that I decided to check this with linear regression fits to see the correlation coefficients, and I was surprised to find out how low they've been lately (though still fairly high if you extend all the way back to 1978, near the end of the last major long-term cooling trend). I think that we're now at or past a peak similar to what was experienced during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, and that there is a pretty decent chance of a 20- to 30-year general cooling trend, after averaging over short-term solar cycles (a peak of which we're now entering). I had previously been using these techniques to analyze daily stock market variations (e.g. how does market behavior from 10 AM to 11 AM affect market behavior from 2 PM to 3 PM, etc.), where I obtained some very interesting results. I figured that lots of other people are doing the same thing as me, and they are helping to effect these results, as well as changing certain trends that I've noticed.
I'm naturally skeptical and only believe the data from the satellites and the ARGO buoys. Of course this doesn't provide enough history to say anything definitive, but I have this sneaking suspicion that what we've seen it not atypical for a natural warming trend over the time frame in question. Of course the fact that 95% of climatologists would lose their jobs if people didn't subscribe to AGW theories will keep this alive for many years, no matter what the evidence shows...
Well, one of the major predictions that many climatologists who put the main emphasis on AGW theories is that 2012 will be the warmest year on record. They made this prediction back in 2009, while those who put more emphasis on theories based on natural cycles said that after 2010, temperatures, as a whole, would start to decrease in spite of the 2012-2014 solar maximum. Even though one or the other wouldn't be any sort of proof, these types of testable predictions definitely give a good idea of who is on the right track.
Also, I disagree with the 95% number. If you mean "climate scientists", I would have to agree, but most "climate scientists" know little if anything about climatology. I think that for actual climatologists, the number is more in the 60% to 80% range.
Also, I disagree with the 95% number. If you mean "climate scientists", I would have to agree, but most "climate scientists" know little if anything about climatology. I think that for actual climatologists, the number is more in the 60% to 80% range.
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
We currently have minus 2 through minus 20 degrees centigrade in Holland in the past two weeks, no sign of a really hot 2012 yet :-).
There was just a report out that this is due to a change in the Arctic Oscillation, a change supposedly caused by melting ice caps. It seems that this is something that they should have been able to predict if they were on the right track?
In reality, the areas where the ice caps have been melting in the northern latitudes have tended to coincide with areas of DECREASED temperature, but also decreased precipitation. In other words, there hasn't actually been a greater amount of melting (so much for this being the cause of the change in the Arctic Oscillation)--there has been a lessor amount of frozen precipitation to replenish melted areas.
In reality, the areas where the ice caps have been melting in the northern latitudes have tended to coincide with areas of DECREASED temperature, but also decreased precipitation. In other words, there hasn't actually been a greater amount of melting (so much for this being the cause of the change in the Arctic Oscillation)--there has been a lessor amount of frozen precipitation to replenish melted areas.
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
>most "climate scientists" know little if anything about climatology
Those "climate scientists" are called politicians
Quite often, they're called biologists, ecologists, and the like. They get funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the U.S. for doing research on how an assumed level of climate change will influence something in their specialty. They write papers on these effects, and in the intro, they point out the various other relevant research that supports the assumed level, causes, and degree of climate change that they're applying to their fields. When a search comes up, their paper shows up as "supporting the consensus", when in actuality, they're just investigating a result of the consensus hypothesis. Back in 2007, there was a study that threw out all of these "results of results" studies and simply investigated the number of peer-reviewed papers making new investigations into the actual causes of climate change. At that time, it was about 50-50 in both directions (primarily natural cycles vs. primarily anthropogenic). Of course, I'd never say that humans have nothing to do with climate change--after all, we ARE pumping large amounts of CO2, a minor greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. But the feedback effects of this will eventually bring about more clouds, and the "tipping point" in reality will work the opposite way, as a negative feedback. I see the far greater worry in that the same things we do that pump CO2 into the atmosphere also tend to destroy the environment in other ways, e.g. the various fossil fuel particulates and such. This was the big thing they were touting back in the 1980s and early 1990s (along with landfill overuse--whatever happened to that?!--it seems to me like a very major worry, though one that is probably irrelevant to climate change discussion), but apparently the public worry over this wasn't so great, especially in the U.S., so they had to find a different scare tactic.
Also, I disagree with the 95% number. If you mean "climate scientists", I would have to agree, but most "climate scientists" know little if anything about climatology. I think that for actual climatologists, the number is more in the 60% to 80% range.
It doesn't matter what their title is. What matters is their source of funding. You should be aware that a wide range of US government agencies are spending big chunks of their budgets on climate research (climate research that generally must support the conclusions of the IPCC). In addition to NASA and NOAA, the NSF and NIH are in there, and we could probably come up with a dozen other agencies if we searched.
Well, one of the major predictions that many climatologists who put the main emphasis on AGW theories is that 2012 will be the warmest year on record. They made this prediction back in 2009, while those who put more emphasis on theories based on natural cycles said that after 2010, temperatures, as a whole, would start to decrease in spite of the 2012-2014 solar maximum. Even though one or the other wouldn't be any sort of proof, these types of testable predictions definitely give a good idea of who is on the right track.
I don't know how they could have done that without knowing if there would be an el nino or la nina event during 2012. It's hard to believe that anyone would predict record highs for 2012 when the year is starting out in a la nina period. It's also hard to believe that anyone will bet heavily on the peak of the next el nino event. I don't see anyone with a good crystal ball here. I think trying to predict any single year is bound to be a crap shoot.
It doesn't matter what their title is. What matters is their source of funding. You should be aware that a wide range of US government agencies are spending big chunks of their budgets on climate research (climate research that generally must support the conclusions of the IPCC). In addition to NASA and NOAA, the NSF and NIH are in there, and we could probably come up with a dozen other agencies if we searched.
Well, one of the major predictions that many climatologists who put the main emphasis on AGW theories is that 2012 will be the warmest year on record. They made this prediction back in 2009, while those who put more emphasis on theories based on natural cycles said that after 2010, temperatures, as a whole, would start to decrease in spite of the 2012-2014 solar maximum. Even though one or the other wouldn't be any sort of proof, these types of testable predictions definitely give a good idea of who is on the right track.
I don't know how they could have done that without knowing if there would be an el nino or la nina event during 2012. It's hard to believe that anyone would predict record highs for 2012 when the year is starting out in a la nina period. It's also hard to believe that anyone will bet heavily on the peak of the next el nino event. I don't see anyone with a good crystal ball here. I think trying to predict any single year is bound to be a crap shoot.
I agree--another indication that they're not quite on the right track here. They were mainly concentrating on the next solar maximum having the hottest years on record. However, solar maxima have historically only provided a minor (though generally detectable) effect.
I want to ask for the last time, where is a graph like this one that proves that Hyatt is correct on Vas. Please give me guarantee that Bob is sent high into this satelite on a life term mission.
The satellite collects external data which people can study and learn from. Bob stopped learning from other people years ago, which is why his engine is falling so far behind, even though he is one of only a few that can spend full time on it, and also has access to top hardware and assistance from students.
If Bob were tasked with describing climate change, he would need only a thermometer with auto recording capability. This would be used to record the temperature where Bob was standing. Nothing else matters. If Bob isn't there, it didn't happen and it doesn't exist. This_should_be_OBVIOUS_to_all!
If Bob were tasked with describing climate change, he would need only a thermometer with auto recording capability. This would be used to record the temperature where Bob was standing. Nothing else matters. If Bob isn't there, it didn't happen and it doesn't exist. This_should_be_OBVIOUS_to_all!
> This would be used to record the temperature where Bob was standing.
Heat island effect!
Thus, the improvement is 750 elo points in just a few years.
Exactly my point. Thanks for looking up the real elo numbers, my +800 elo was not far off the mark.
Exactly my point. Thanks for looking up the real elo numbers, my +800 elo was not far off the mark.
Well, Don Dailey claims Vas is guilty. This makes him suspicious. (sorry)
Don did +800 elo since Cilkchess. But of course Bob will claim this is perfectly normal. While if this were Vas, it must have been code copying.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
> While if this were Vas, it must have been code copying.
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
Don did it in a for chess programmers understandable time frame, Vas did not.
Ask the French, Lance Armstrong used doping.
Ask the French, Lance Armstrong used doping.
Ask the French, Lance Armstrong used doping.
Yes, and Virenque and Voeckler are of course perfectly clean ;-).
Yes, and Virenque and Voeckler are of course perfectly clean ;-).
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
And many don't.
And you also have the little problem, unexplainable by your model. The plus 400 Elo. The inability of yourself and the other incremental puzzle solvers to do it yourself, despite six years and a full disassembley to help.
All points to new paradigm, you left behind, a new big unifying idea and it's implementation, with, actually, you so left behind you can't even see it. You don't implement such an idea by code copy. You do it by permeating everything you do with the new thinking. And throwing out the old. You say copy because of your old way blindness. Stuck in the same sad warp, most would probably do the same.
Anyway, you are unexplainable to, your value to us is to let others see you.
And you also have the little problem, unexplainable by your model. The plus 400 Elo. The inability of yourself and the other incremental puzzle solvers to do it yourself, despite six years and a full disassembley to help.
All points to new paradigm, you left behind, a new big unifying idea and it's implementation, with, actually, you so left behind you can't even see it. You don't implement such an idea by code copy. You do it by permeating everything you do with the new thinking. And throwing out the old. You say copy because of your old way blindness. Stuck in the same sad warp, most would probably do the same.
Anyway, you are unexplainable to, your value to us is to let others see you.
> because two people, working independently, are NOT going to develop code that is so similar in so many ways and places...
And yet again you form your position derived on evidence from students who have little relevance as to what is accepted in the professional world. The courts accept what is likely in the professional world and you continually fail to acknowledge what has gone before ...
SAS Institute versus World Programming Limited 2010
185... "This does not answer the question with which I am confronted, which is peculiar, I believe, to computer programs. The reason it is a new problem is that two completely different computer programs can produce an identical result: not a result identical at some level of abstraction but identical at any level of abstraction. This is so even if the author of one has no access at all to the other but only to its results. The analogy with a plot is for this reason a poor one. It is a poor one for other reasons as well. To say these programs possess a plot is precisely like saying that the book of instructions for a booking clerk acting manually has a plot: but a book of instructions has no theme, no events, and does not have a narrative flow. Nor does a computer program, particularly one whose behaviour depends upon the history of its inputs in any given transaction. It does not have a plot, merely a series of pre-defined operations intended to achieve the desired result in response to the requests of the customer."
If the courts accept this then your continued protestations are irrelevant.
A chess program clearly falls into the latter referenced category. Once chess is solved, the moves will be read from a database and the attempt to show artistic merit in today's programs is based around the fact that in most cases 2+2 = 3 or 2+2 = 5. When they can repeatedly produce 4 it will be realised all of the arguments posted here have been a complete waste of time. I am probably too kind here, the errors are likely larger.
PeterG
>> Is there Rybka code derived from Fruit?
> No
Do you believe this as emphatically as Bob believes that the answer is yes?
VIG and VII are too limiting to me. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence. If I presuppose that Vas is guilty, the preponderance of that evidence solidifies my position. If instead I use the VII point of view, then I will give little weight to the early Rybkas, and see that the individual pieces of evidence are not particularly damning. Either way, my initial position remains unchanged. That proves to me that VIG and VII should be jettisoned. They are too prejudicial for this situation.
I think most of the active participants in this debate have taken positions that are stronger than they can legitimately support. I see it on both sides. The logic in their statements starts to suffer when they strive to give no ground.
> Did Vas many ideas from Fruit? yes
Did he take too many ideas from one source? Publicly available knowledge should be and is okay to use. If I get ideas from multiple sources and, in addition to my own ideas, create an engine, then I can legitimately call it my work. My creation. Yet, if I take ideas from predominately one source, there is a limit to how much I can take. If I take too much, I can not legitimately claim the work to be my own. If I used multiple sources, I have to work out how to fit the pieces together. If I use one source, the fitting has been worked out for me.
It seems to me that it becomes a question of how much is too much.
--- Forgive me if this seems too disjointed. I am using my smart phone and it is difficult to edit my written thoughts.
I think you'll find we are in almost full agreement with you. This is an extremely difficult and grey case where we need to synthesise the solution from studying the hard case extreme positions and then applying _reasonable_ and balanced judgements and from disciplines more than computer chess. Both Ed and I, not exclusively or course, are well able to take part in such process. Unfortunately, Hyatt has proved himself not. What is actually needed is dialog between the reasonable people on the attacker side and the opposition. Probably this needs to begin in private. Hyatt will have to be excluded other than the making of witness statements on request.
Your move, we are fully in favour of dialog with honest commitment to progress and which can't be sabotaged by one individual.
Your move, we are fully in favour of dialog with honest commitment to progress and which can't be sabotaged by one individual.
![[pl]](/mwf/v12/flags/pl.png "Poland")
What would actually improve matters would be for Vas to speak for himself. If he does think he's innocent of the charges ideally he'd appeal them (or accept the charges but appeal the punishment) and explain what he did and why he considers it acceptable. If he doesn't want to engage with the ICGA at all then he could do the same thing publicly. That might start a useful debate, and it would at least end the odd spectacle of people defending him in terms he might well not agree with himself.
If only I were a programmer with the requisite knowledge for judging the evidence. Instead, I am limited to criticizing how the debate is being conducted, along with being able to discuss some points that venture into the mathematical realm.
I do agree that dialog, rather than diatribe, is needed. I don't think we are in full agreement about everyone who is impeding the necessary dialog. Nevertheless, if I can supply anything useful to such a dialog, I will. I take you for your word that you will to.
I do agree that dialog, rather than diatribe, is needed. I don't think we are in full agreement about everyone who is impeding the necessary dialog. Nevertheless, if I can supply anything useful to such a dialog, I will. I take you for your word that you will to.
> Do you believe this as emphatically as Bob believes that the answer is yes?
I can't speak for Bob, my scale would be 90-95% innocent to the ICGA charges. Enough to take a strong stance.
If you go through the history of known cloners the pattern is that countless cloners have been caught almost instantly by leaving obvious traces, Houdini being the latest example of that and nobody disagrees. Like playing style in a chess program traces of cloning are hard to remove and the latter should have told the Rybka investigators something. Instead they started a painful and process of reverse engineering that took years, a creative process where objectivity becomes under great pressure.
Now that Rybka 1 is decompiled (which would have been the easy way to go IMO) it's my hope there are some programmers out there who will invest some time in another (and more easy) comparison, Fruit source code left, Rybka source code right. What can be more easy. And I am not the right person to do that.
interesting reasoning from you...
just imagine that:you kill someone,but none person see you,no record of the crime,no evidence because all people was sleeping,but you killed the other person...that makes you innocent,because the police hasnt any proof against you?
just imagine that:you kill someone,but none person see you,no record of the crime,no evidence because all people was sleeping,but you killed the other person...that makes you innocent,because the police hasnt any proof against you?
![[no]](/mwf/v12/flags/no.png "Norway")
> Just ask the VIG camp for proof of copied code (the bigger picture) and see what they will present.
>
The usual answer is: Read the reports. Which of course doesn't contain any proof of copied code.
Here are some "Vas quotes" that shows a ton of "honesty":
(from Mark's first paper)
Subject: Rybka - How much Fruit is inside ?
From: Vasik Rajlich
Message Number: 469187
Date: December 12, 2005 at 03:34:15
[...]
The Rybka source code is original and pre-dates all of the Fruit releases.
[...]
We know those "pre-fruit rybkas were anything but original. They were direct copies of Crafty, with only a very few changes. That is a strange definition of "original".
Subject: Unmasking the Secrets of Rybka and Fruit
From: Vasik Rajlich
Message Number: 470751
Date: December 16, 2005 at 03:42:44
Andy,
I will just end up teasing you by answering this. :)
As far as I know, Rybka has a very original search and evaluation framework.
A lot of things that have been dismissed by "computer chess practice" can
in fact work. ...
So he supposedly uses an "original search and evaluation framework"??? :) Perhaps he is saying that "Fruit" has an original search/evaluation framework and he is using THAT? :) So, another false statement...
... I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and
took many things. [...] Anyway, if I really had to give a number - my wild
guess is that Rybka would be 20 rating points weaker had Fruit not appeared.
Does that even sound REMOTELY accurate?
And then the obfuscation of node counts, NPS, depth, and PV truncation. Why? Only reasonable explanation is to hide the origin/similarity-to-fruit of his program. His comical explanation about "counting nodes differently" makes one want to roll up their pants legs to keep the bullsh** off their cuffs...
In light of those, why does the word "honesty" even enter the conversation???
(from Mark's first paper)
Subject: Rybka - How much Fruit is inside ?
From: Vasik Rajlich
Message Number: 469187
Date: December 12, 2005 at 03:34:15
[...]
The Rybka source code is original and pre-dates all of the Fruit releases.
[...]
We know those "pre-fruit rybkas were anything but original. They were direct copies of Crafty, with only a very few changes. That is a strange definition of "original".
Subject: Unmasking the Secrets of Rybka and Fruit
From: Vasik Rajlich
Message Number: 470751
Date: December 16, 2005 at 03:42:44
> ... If I were able to ask Vasik one question, which I doubt he would have
> time to answer at the moment, it would be whether he did anything radically
> different (different heuristic(s), algorithms, etc.), or if he just did what
> everyone else is doing, better than they did it.
Andy,
I will just end up teasing you by answering this. :)
As far as I know, Rybka has a very original search and evaluation framework.
A lot of things that have been dismissed by "computer chess practice" can
in fact work. ...
So he supposedly uses an "original search and evaluation framework"??? :) Perhaps he is saying that "Fruit" has an original search/evaluation framework and he is using THAT? :) So, another false statement...
... I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and
took many things. [...] Anyway, if I really had to give a number - my wild
guess is that Rybka would be 20 rating points weaker had Fruit not appeared.
Does that even sound REMOTELY accurate?
And then the obfuscation of node counts, NPS, depth, and PV truncation. Why? Only reasonable explanation is to hide the origin/similarity-to-fruit of his program. His comical explanation about "counting nodes differently" makes one want to roll up their pants legs to keep the bullsh** off their cuffs...
In light of those, why does the word "honesty" even enter the conversation???
I don't use the word often, because usually I try to look for alternative explanations, but basically, you are evil.
Wh do you WANT that he is guilty? And WANT to trash him in all ways? Not nice.
Wh do you WANT that he is guilty? And WANT to trash him in all ways? Not nice.
This discussion had died down. I did not re-kindle it. I simply want "the truth". And the truth here is that ICGA rule two was broken, code was copied, and Vas has repeatedly made false statements about all of this. nothing more, nothing less...
If there is nothing to respond to, I'm not going to start new threads about it. I've seen nothing new said in months now, at least anything that is actually factual...
If there is nothing to respond to, I'm not going to start new threads about it. I've seen nothing new said in months now, at least anything that is actually factual...
I can't accept your response. I watched you over an extended period, years in fact, persistently and constantly pushing the line that Vas was a liar, a thief and various other insults. I watched CCC under your moderation with insults and even death threats spattered all over, all left up, zero moderation from you. Plus your involvement in the campaign of propaganda. You were clearly leader, propagandist in chief, then transformed by Levy into Witchfinder General.
Yours has been an evil life over the last years, Hyatt. Venomous and vindictive. The only remaining question is the nature of the punishment god has decided for you.
Yours has been an evil life over the last years, Hyatt. Venomous and vindictive. The only remaining question is the nature of the punishment god has decided for you.
Death threats? Never seen one. I don't read all the posts there, it is quite busy. I don't read all the posts here either, just the responses to my posts. Had someone complained at CCC, action would be taken if there really WAS a "death threat." There was no "campaign of propaganda". There was a campaign of "evidence gathering" that certainly snowballed...
Somehow I don't think God gives a hoot about this particular discussion, other than perhaps a demerit or two for Vas on the question of "honesty" and outright false statements he has made. I don't believe any of this is an "after-life influencing issue." To imply so is surely nothing more than an act of desperation when there is nothing more to add, factually...
Somehow I don't think God gives a hoot about this particular discussion, other than perhaps a demerit or two for Vas on the question of "honesty" and outright false statements he has made. I don't believe any of this is an "after-life influencing issue." To imply so is surely nothing more than an act of desperation when there is nothing more to add, factually...
Never seen you use such strong wordings.
Ed - "Perhaps this split and divided community can settle on: He took too much."
Mark Lefler - Ed, I think that is the best summary of this whole thing. Vasik took too much in the eyes of the panel.
+1.
No code copying (as Hyatt still falsely claims), but just too many ideas. Which is silly, as taking ideas is OK and that is what most of the computer chess community has been doing since computer chess went commercial and lots of stuff got available on the internet.
The whole charade to still claim 'code copying' is just there to 'support' the ICGA decision and the wishes of chess programmers that cannot compete anymore.
It is really that simple.
Mark Lefler - Ed, I think that is the best summary of this whole thing. Vasik took too much in the eyes of the panel.
+1.
No code copying (as Hyatt still falsely claims), but just too many ideas. Which is silly, as taking ideas is OK and that is what most of the computer chess community has been doing since computer chess went commercial and lots of stuff got available on the internet.
The whole charade to still claim 'code copying' is just there to 'support' the ICGA decision and the wishes of chess programmers that cannot compete anymore.
It is really that simple.
Of course the fun thing about recipe is that we need to introduce back again the fact that all weights are different. Cakes made with 3 eggs, 500g raisins, 1kg flour are not same as cakes made with 3 eggs, 300g flour and 100g raisins. Actually one might be a cake and the other a scone eg. Not to mention that one recipe uses star anise and the other cinnamon.
Hyatt wants to avoid the recipe discussion methinks.
Hyatt wants to avoid the recipe discussion methinks.
> Of course the fun thing about recipe is that we need to introduce back again the fact that all weights are different.
It was fun to go through that. You see the hand of a good chess player. It's much much better than Fruit.
I have visited Vas in 2008 and I really was amazed: incredible amount of new & own idea's, incredible way of testing. Hours and hours a day working on implementing those idea's. This was SO different compared to what others were doing!
> No code copying (as Hyatt still falsely claims), but just too many ideas. Which is silly, as taking ideas is OK and that is what most of the computer chess community has been doing since computer chess went commercial and lots of stuff got available on the internet.
Vas' mistake: Rybka's progress was too fast.
It was not understood.
So something is wrong.
Classic.
History is full of examples.
It is the same elsewhere: when a new cyclist suddenly gets into the picture, scoring very good results, the first thing people shout today is: 'doping'.
Not always, but otherwise a good analogy. Labelling cyclists is also dependent on which country he comes from, as some countries certainly has a more shady history than others.
You are right. El Chinito. Le Petite. Voyager. ippolit. Houdini. Not to mention the ones denied entry or booted by the ICGA that everyone is aware of. The direct copy of Genius back in the 80's. Etc...
You are NOT "making a good case" with such comments. :)
History IS "full of such examples..." indeed...
You are NOT "making a good case" with such comments. :)
History IS "full of such examples..." indeed...
> You are NOT "making a good case" with such comments. :)
You missed the topic at hand, the fail to appreciate and misunderstood genius, historic figures that suffered because nobody was able to recognize their brilliancy, the Rembrandt's, the Jules Vernes' among us.
It is impossible that a genius - at least a literary genius - can ever be discovered by his intimates; they are so close to him that he is out of focus to them and they can't get at his proportions; they can't perceive that there is any considerable difference between his bulk and their own.
-- Mark Twain
Apparently it needs some sort of special genes to recognize a genius when he appears. Adding 400 elo in a couple of years is good enough for me.
Certainly innocent people are convicted. But far guilty people get off scott-free because the judicial system is set up to try to avoid convicting the innocent. But no system is perfect, ever. This is not one of those "innocents was convicted cases" however...
You do know that there are "genius criminals"? Does that give them a "free pass" when they are caught? Don't think so, nor should it... So "genius" is 100% irrelevant in the current discussion. We are not trying to decide whether he is a genius or not. Rather, whether he copied code or not...
You do know that there are "genius criminals"? Does that give them a "free pass" when they are caught? Don't think so, nor should it... So "genius" is 100% irrelevant in the current discussion. We are not trying to decide whether he is a genius or not. Rather, whether he copied code or not...
Date 2012-02-02 22:36
"took too much" is code copying.
No.
Yes.
Taking many ideas is clearly NOT code copying. It is the myth that is still stuck in your head.
taking many lines of source code IS copying. That doesn't seem to make it into your head...
Probably because nobody has been able to actually show the copied code, unless they were pointing to code that doesn't really exist.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill