Robert isn´t so choosy, maybe less than Kim Jong-il.
>Speaking for myself, I'd rather live in Switzerland than Zimbabwe.
Hmm, I could make a joke about the recent plant dignity considerations in the former, but I won't.
Would you mind explaining this, just to satisfy my curiousity?
Is this about "Plant Dignity?"
>Man this is freaking me out!
Some of us know how to exploit the forum freak-out tool. :-P [Actually, it simply sometimes happens that the jump function can be off by a page or so, probably due to embedded graphics or whatnot].
>Is this about "Plant Dignity?"
Hmm, the original post was by VR detailing how Strelka 2.0 borrowed many things from Rybka 1.0 Beta. Then there was an intellectual property rights debate (well, maybe "debate" is a bit of a misnomer). Then NH intervened by saying that (as a rule) economic prosperity is more likely under a regime of secure property rights. Then I snarkily interposed that he was taking "economic prosperity" to be a universal good w/o warrant. Then he responded by noting that he'd rather live in Switzerland than Zimbabwe. Now (months later) I noted a recent article that describes the progressive(?) Swiss idea of plant dignity.
> Actually, it simply sometimes happens that the jump function can be off by a page or so, probably due to embedded graphics or whatnot
That should have been solved with the latest upgrade. Let me know if you still run into that problem. The page was always correct but the offset didn't take slow loading (external) graphics into account.
Both my sons make there living off of programming, so I take a position that if people got and my Sons work for free, that is what I call stealing.
This can be relevant in case that he is going to release code that is based on rybka2.3.2a
I consider myself fairly liberal, but this scandal gives a bad example of what happens if a sector has no authority which can secure at least a required minimum of 'law and order'. It results in anarchy, as soon as enough unscrupulos persons notice that they are (almost) unrestricted to do whatever they want.
many people either don't want to accept the obvious, or are incapable to do so, or even dismiss any civilised standards, as it seems
Sorry, I am not sure what you are talking about?
> Shakespeare wrote plays with characters that addressed the climate of these issues.
My dear Sid, you are so dependent on the English language for your citations. :) Do you think that the Greek dramaturgs would not already have addressed these issues? The genius of Shakespeare was to reintroduce the Great Questions to an audience for which they had ceased to be of import.
Hobbes finds three basic causes of the conflict in this state of nature: competition, diffidence and glory.
"The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. His first law of nature is that that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. In the state of nature, every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body but the second law is that, in order to secure the advantages of peace, that a man be willing, when others are so too… to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. This is the beginning of contracts/covenants; performing of which is the third law of nature. Injustice, therefore, is failure to perform in a covenant; all else is just."
So what this passage from 350 years ago basically says is "do unto others as you would have done to yourself." If you look at this from Vasik's point of view, it is very obvious that somebody in Russia has not followed the Golden Rule and is rationalizing their bandit conduct in the same way that all bandits rationalize their behavior.
I've never cared for Hobbes, but regardless if you look closer into all of this you might find that this is a movement in Russian subculture not unlike Dadaism. It is well rehearsed and its intentions are very clear.
Bye the by, please show me where I quoted Shakespeare? I am not aware of " ever " do so! :-) That is so typical of people who are so much in their own head and so ready to preach that they never get their facts straight.
Ta ta! :-)
Upon making a visit to the dirty, stagnant pond known as the TalkChess forum, I was greatly surprised to see that Bob Hyatt is not only defending Strelka, but defending the rights of people in general to disassemble chess programs to "level the playing field". I would have thought that even in the single-minded frame of extreme leftist academia, such communistic ideals would have been tossed out by obvious failures in history, theory, and logic. I guess that the general population in Alabama is so conservative that the government universities must really go off the deep end in intellectual rebellion. "Level the playing field"!? My gosh! Everything should be equal intellectually and otherwise! Nobody should have to work for anything! When someone gets ahead, we'll just level the playing field! Well, I guess there is a particular presidential candidate he will favor, one who has made that quote practically the trademark of her speeches over the past 16 months or so, filling it in wherever possible from Vladimir Lenin's template.
Anyway, so now we have some people out who are genuinely, honestly justifying the Strelka cloning as something that is valid and good in that it "levels the playing field". Ugh!
> I guess if any of his students were planning on creating an innovative program and starting a company based on it, they're switching majors now...
Time for my daily dose of obscure quotes (poetic, to ensure that sidserious is content) --- from Ocalony by Różewicz:
Pojęcia są tylko wyrazami:
Cnota i występek
Prawda i kłamstwo
Piękno i brzydota
Męstwo i tchórzostwo.
[Concepts? no, mere words: virtue and malice / truth and lies / beauty and squalor / courage and fear].
Jednako waży cnota i występek
Człowieka który był jeden
Występny i cnotliwy.
[Virtue and crime are evenly weighed / for I have seen: a man be both / criminal and virtuous].
Szukam nauczyciela i mistrza
Niech przywróci mi wzrok słuch i mowę
Niech jeszcze raz nazwie rzeczy i pojęcia
Niech oddzieli światło od ciemności.
[How do I seek a teacher, and a master! / let him restore my hearing, sight, and speech /
let him again name longings and beliefs / let him separate the day from the night].
Pop quiz. Which of the following devices has not been extensively reverse engineered by competitors:
Give yourself full credit if you answered "None of the above". Software actually has some minor advantages in that the author has copyright protection (which means very little people in many countries) and free reign in trying to hide the algorithms being used.
The real issue with Strelka is not that it was an attempt to reverse engineer Rybka (many had already done this), but that apparently the author created either a non-literal copy or a derivative work without permission from the real author.
Ideas are slippery things that tend to get out sooner or later. I suspect that Vas has learned quite a bit since he developed the demo product and that is will quickly become obvious that Rybka is not a one trick pony. The worst part about this whole affair is that in an effort not to allow this type of incident to happen again in the future, Vas will be spending a good deal of his time and effort in the future on obfuscating his engine's algorithms that could have been spent improving them.
...giving certain Russians just enough time to try to come up with something just as good...
> Pop quiz. Which of the following devices has not been extensively reverse engineered by competitors...
> Give yourself full credit if you answered "None of the above".
[So... None of the above has not been RE'd]...
Uggh, double negatives... you're making my brain hurt. :) What we really need is a poll: What will Osipov RE next? :-P
Note that Vas allowed to use rybka beta exe file with no restrictions.
I wonder if there is some case when a person who allowed to use his exe file with no restrictions won in court against somebody who did something similiar to Osipov by reverse engineering.
Is there some history case to be sure that it is illegal to really use rybka beta with no restrictions that means also to sell strelka or maybe it is not clear if selling a program that her code is based on strelka is illegal?
Note that it is not enough to show me a case when somebody who said nothing won in court and you need to show me a case when somebody who allowed to use his program with no restrictions won in court.
The algorithms were never protected, except by secrecy and the difficulty associated with understanding what is going on in the code and data tables. If someone had reverse engineered the program and written an authoritative paper titled "The Algorithms of Rybka" giving a much more detailed description of the Rybka demo than what Anthony provided, there's probably not much that Vas could have done about it.
On the other hand, if you take a shortcut and reuse Vas's code, whether its a literal copy (reusing chunks of code), a non-literal copy (what you would end up with from reconstructing the code after reverse engineering and some cleanup), or a derivative work (making changes but leaving the structure essentially the same), there would be copyright issues.
I don't think the argument that because the author allowed unrestricted use of the demo executable, its OK to reverse engineer the code and redistribute it would go very far. The code itself was never put into the public domain and the rights to use the executable and the right to modify and redistribute the code are clearly differentiated. Precedents are hard to find for this situation only because its rather cut and dried.
If there was no similiar case then it is not clear if releasing strelka was legal and it is not clear if people have the legal right to release new code or to sell new code that is based on strelka.
In regard to Strelka, it would be very surprising to me to see a court rule that Vas had put his code in the public domain by either action or deed, but of course stranger things have happened.
I do not know what the court is going to decide but I know that I am going to decide not quilty instead of the court in the case of Strelka that is based on rybka beta.
It is clearly possible to understand no restrictions as no restrictions to use the exe in every possible way and Vas can blame only himself for not being more careful in his words.
"Contents & License
In this package, you will find the Rybka 1.0 Beta chess engine (dated Dec 4, 2005), as well as the Turk opening book by Djordje Vidanovic. Both versions of these components are free and can be used and transmitted without restriction."
I understand your argument relative to Rybka, but I think you take things more literally than most and I suspect that a court would see the effort that Vas has put into keeping the code out of the public domain as significant. In this case, the developer of Strelka went to considerable trouble to reverse engineer the software. No reasonable person would do this if the code was available for the asking. I suspect the developer of Strelka didn't even bother asking because he knew very well, a priori, what the answer would be.
> Everything should be equal intellectually and otherwise!
Indeed, Osipov should be forced to reveal his disassembly tricks/secrets to the population at large! I expect that a full technical paper on real-world disassembly (with special care to the case of Rybka 1.0) will appear soon. :-P
> you should be quoting Thomas Hobbes, who noted that Man living in a state of nature had a life that was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
The presumed effects of Monism are readily apparent in this quote... I prefer the Shakespeare analogy, though I'd say the question of evil [embodied in Iago] is more poignantly described not by the Bard, but by the Poet [Ovid in this case]: Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor [I see the way of right; indeed, I approve of it --- I choose to do elsewise].
> I don't see myself as holding a candle
No fan of Propertius? Viximus insignes inter utramque facem. [This is not easy to translate, as it is from an elegy - perhaps: "Life is distinguished between the two torches", but you still need to perceive the usual symbolism of the torch as life-giving being inverted for the funerary sense].
We lived honourably after our marriage, before your death?
> inter utramque facem: aren't the two torches meaning "marriage and funeral"?
I'm glad somebody has the audacity to hesitate at the authority of my Latin-mongering. :) I claim no expertise here - perhaps I am unduly influenced by an idea from pseudo-feminist reinterpretation about the Roman sense: the "life" of a woman only began at marriage. [The conclusion, then, would be that the two torches would indeed be "marriage and funeral" for a woman, but an enlarged meaning could apply to a man].
Then I looked for this specfic citation, and found that,in the whole context, this interpretation could have been more suitable (the dead cornelia speaks to his husband): I would't have dared to put forward another translation, defying your authority :)
Anyway, your interpretation is interesting, from a more general point of view.
> in the case (?) I'm right
Certainly most scholarship would agree with you that the torches are wedding/funeral. Indeed, the whole elegy is filled with allusions that link the two [one nice description is that of Curran, page 138 in particular]. Of course, if Cornelia had followed Paullus to death it would be completely obvious [as with gaudent victrices et flammae pectora praebent, imponuntque suis ora perusta viris]. I think this nuanced(?!) view is that birth/death for a woman was seen as identical to wedding/funeral.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill