|Yes, the term "plagiarise" is appropriate||33||50%|
|No, the term "plagiarise" is not appropriate||33||50%|
> He didn't use any "basic ideas". He copied many complete procedures, 100%.
Bob, Oh! Bob!
If it were 100% -he would have been ranking up there with you good buddy!
But he ranked 53rd.
I don't think your code is that poor in performance is it.
You cannot have it both way big guy!
(you want to try and argue another one your "technically over my head" 100% procedures again!)
> Do you believe it is possible that I copy a book in its entirety, word for word, and then _add_ many more words to it? Every word of the work I copied is still there, but with new code that can change elements of the plot significantly? What in the world is wrong with you???
If you are a hack sure! But Vas is not a Hack and your simplistic explanation rings hollow. I think he gave it a real try in using some Crafty ideas (as you suggested in your web sight) blended in with his own , and it failed to function effectively.
> And then he copied code from fruit, and the rest is history.
When Dr. Watkins had first got started investigating (this is just a little into the investigation) - you found out that Crafty was used as a model for one of Vas' first programming versions. Not at all an uncommon occurrence since that is what you provided for on your website.
Your histrionics over his using Crafty was ridiculously exaggerated considering the conditions of use : however, excessive they appeared to others - you saw nothing extravagant in how you acted- because you had an axe to grind and you were working yourself up to the heights of vindictiveness, and as you put it- the only thing left then would be the question of Fabien's code.
But your being in-charge of some of the data preparation -if not all of the data preparation for the panel - is a real sticking point.
That would be an awful temptation and one that would almost guarantee Vas' fate. But here it comes -that "what if" you saw something in that data that might challenge his ban?
But here is my contention- "What if" through a purely unconscious act of manipulation or disinformation-possibly poor science he was given a guilty verdict? But you kind of knew that there were sticky points to that data.
In a way- you would have no choice but to be on this forum to check to see if that disinformation or manipulation of data were found so that you could be here to challenge it.
But worse yet, Ed pops up! Someone who signed on to the ICGA -and he is not satisfied and thinks there might be some issues with the data.
You are now beside yourself. What do you do - why of course- belittle him chastise him and to otherwise get him off the trail.
NO! this isn't- a case of "...And then he copied code from fruit and the rest is history!
I did not prepare Zach's report in the least. I did not prepare Mark's report in the least. Both did their own disassembly and comparison. If you look at the Crafty-Rybka report, I wrote most of that, but using the data that Mark/Zach uncovered for a starting point. And I referenced their work in my writeup. So I do not know what you are talking about when you talk about "being in charge of some of the data preparation". And, of course, neither do you.
As far as the accuracy of the data presented by Mark and Zach, I do not know of _any_ "sticking point." Any exculpatory evidence. Anything at all that might even suggest that any small piece of the data is inaccurate.
Ed is capable of reading the report and understanding it. He can find those Rybka PST values just as easily as I found them a few months back, and then yesterday when I responded to trotsky (Chris). He's belittling me for not doing his work for him. As I said, he _signed_ the letter of protest. Apparently he's a lemming-type personality, because he then failed to follow through and join the investigative panel. Rather he sits back and then demands that I go thru the stuff and extract what he is interesteed in. Not in my job description. I can't figure out why he would sign the complaint and ignore the investigation, however. But in the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
However, you do have an active imagination. So let it lead you around in circles. At least keeps you out of most everyone's way.
I like your proclamations, as though you actually understand what has happened. But, sadly, you simply don't (or won't) "get it." That is your shortcoming, not our problem.
But keep wishing...
i.e. tempting Søren to come out of the woodwork with the, "I thought we agreed on... " and telling you what terms you should be using.
Just a friendly warning. & &
>But he ranked 53rd.
Ok Robert the Roof,
Here's the link I promised you where Rybka really placed... since it seems too difficult for you to find.
Enjoy (erasing the 53s everywhere) and
Edit: seems too late for me to get me too's and to's straight
> probably better than "gasping for air" as you are doing. Results have nothing to do with whether someone copied code or not. But don't let that stop you from continuing that train of argument...
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill