> You are using an utterly twisted definition of "unique".
You are "twisted"!
Bob, when they found that it was in fact unique and original- as a body of work. They knew they made a very big mistake in listening to you. You are here to cover up at whatever it takes as long as it takes the bullshit that you started. Good luck! Jack! Your proof is as I repeat a speck on the back of a fleas ass siting on a dog.
Vas made a statement to the ICGA inquiry in response to our early request for him to join. Namely that "_all_ versions of Rybka were 100% original except for public domain snippets..." Mark Watkins decided to verify that statement with respect to early versions, and 1.6.1 was the first that was examined. And found to be not just a "little bit of copied code" but "a _lot_ of copied code." But apparently when someone makes a statement to the panel, we are not allowed to verify the statement as true/false, "just because"??
I also find it interesting that this wholesale copying in 1.6.1, a version that was distributed to rating list testers, in direct violation of Crafty's license, is considered to be "irrelevant and OK because this happened 6 years ago."
You, and others, seem to adopt the reasoning "Anything is OK here. Rules don't matter. Copyright/GPL does not matter. Common ethics in Computer Science don't matter. Whatever Vas does is OK, period.
Why you believe that is beyond me. And beyond a _lot_ of other folks as well. You might ask yourself "why?"
What is even stranger is that "outsiders" (non-authors) want to dictate to "insiders" (authors that participate in ICGA events and other events that use their rules) how we ought to do things, how we should change the rules, how we should interpret the rules and how we ought to compete. As if we cared what _they_ think about _our_ competitions and rules of participation. If a group wants to form a golf association where you can't use woods, when a right-handed person can only use left-handed irons, and where you can only use a sand-wedge for putting, more power to them. People that like the rules will participate, those that don't, won't. And those that don't will _not_ be continually telling 'em that they should change their rules, they are unfair, they make no sense. If a group of people want to participate in some sort of contest, the first thing that is required is rules, so that everyone knows what is allowed and what is not. In a horse race, no motorcycles or cars allowed. etc. Once the participants define the rules that they all agree on, then they compete using those rules and all are happy. The "outsiders" should have no expectation that they can dictate the rules when they do not even compete.
This has been just about the strangest situation I have ever seen, even though several others have been barred from competing, booted from tournaments, exposed in public, etc. But "this" case is different. why? Because this is a forum of supporters, some of which simply refuse to accept that something _bad_ has happened. And they keep trying to find reasons that the "bad behavior" was exposed for every possible reason under the sun, the process was flawed, the people were biased, the investigation was biased, completely ignoring the small fact that a major rule was broken and that this was proven beyond a doubt to those that understand computer chess programming.
Strange is not really the best word, but it fits...
There was no "lynch mob." Each time Vas opened a door, we chose to walk through it to see what we might find. It really was a simple and straightforward investigation that required some pretty decent technical skills to pull off. This has nothing to do with a grudge, otherwise we would have done the same to Ken when he dominated, or to Hsu when he dominated. There is no attempt to "belittle his contributions" although we have shown that much of his contribution was tainted by rules violations that gave him a significant competitive edge. I would never look at his contributions in the same light as those of Slate, Thompson or Hsu, because _they_ didn't cheat.
> I find it quite interesting that this has become about perceived flaws in the _process_, as opposed to erroneous conclusions.
Well, I think this means you're starting to make progress...
I have long understood that the RF is a user's group rather than an author's group. The ICGA has always been an "author's group". That was who founded it, and that is who sustains it. The process has been an author's process. The tournament is an author's tournament. Trying to make it something else is a waste of time, as it is what it is. For those that don't like what it is, that's simply too bad...
And should the FSF choose to follow up, the _same_ discussions would be here, only addressing how stupid they are for filing a court case, how little they know about copyright law, about how the GPL can't be enforced, and such. And if they won, then it would turn to the judge in the case and how stupid he was, and how he didn't understand the copyright law or the prior opinions that have been issued. In short, anything that is against "Rybka" is wrong...
> Whether they will react or not is unknown.
You mean they may not even take up the case - it is unknown whether they will bother with all of this? And, if they don't- then the ICGA has created a monstrous mistake. And, if they should and if Fabien should not prevail in this-you have no case at all.
If FSF declines to bother, it has zero bearing on the ICGA action. The ICGA, an organization of programmers, concluded that rule 2 was violated, based on the evidence, and that, as they say, it that...
> How can I answer? I am not a part of the FSF. They will do what they will do, and we will find out about it only after they decide.
At least that is more than we could say about how the ICGA handled this affair! We all knew how that would turn out before it began, while it was in progress and no secret how it ended. That is at least one entity that you don't have your hands in.
If the FSF chooses to follow up, the discussion will not be the same because people take the FSF very seriously. The same people don't take you or the ICGA seriously because you haven't run a serious investigation.
> Has nothing to do with the investigative process. Has everything to do with who was investigated. Just watch. FSF gets involved, wins in court, the ICGA decision will _still_ be wrong...
Only if people are really really blind Bob.
that is just one symptom regarding "cult of celebrity"
which is the driving force behind the sheer lunacy of so many posts here.
Just watch Alan, Nelson et al. do exactly what Bob said "stupid FSF... bunch of idiots"
Facts are irrelevant. It just _can't_ be true.
The FSF is a fine organization, created to serve the public interest with clearly stated goals and objectives. The ICGA is a lynch mob that wouldn't know due process if they tripped over it.
I doubt if the FSF will be called a "fine organization" here if they follow through. Latest info says that at least Fabien intends to push it with them... We'll see...
Lots of DA's "stay out of court." But I doubt the people they are prosecuting and plea-bargaining with would call the process "amicable".
Makes no sense. Olympic committee did not sit around to wait to see if Ben Johnson was tried and convicted for some illegal substance use. They acted once they had evidence to support them.
> Because it is not original and contains parts of the program fruit.
> Now wasn't that simple???
Nothing is ever totally original!
Now wasn't that painlessly simple???
Probably not for you uh Bob!
Do you know "jack shit" by the way? Should be a close friend it would seem...
> I do get it. "shit" is about the only subject you know anything about. Why that is, I can only imagine...
> Do you know "jack shit" by the way? Should be a close friend it would seem...
You happen to be the subject under discussion Bob!
I can sure recognize shit when I see it and you are it! So do I know Jack Shit! Haven't met him unless he's someone you intend to introduce me to and quite honestly anything you have to say may as well be coming from any Jack Shit!
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill