Fritz is, believe it or not, Fritz Reul's, first name.
A computer program cannot "refuse to permit the inspection of his code". Computer programs cannot be "_innocent_ of plagiarism, but _guilty_ of stubornness".
It was evidently a human that was being talked about. A human who is called Fritz by dint of his name being, of all things, Fritz.
I ought to have also said that due to the serious consequences of the allegation, the person who made the allegation and the allegation contents should be put formally on the record. As far as I know this information currently isn't yet publicly known. (Please correct me here if wrong, with URL if poss.)
"Face your accuser", and all that. Something 6th-amendment-like, for the US readers.
Looks like the _data_'s the same, as it is. You'll notice is says: "Most of links and ids of vulnerabilities were from list maintained by Thor Larholm at PIVX" right at the top.
However, the original site _was pulled_ by the owner, that's beyond question. I've noticed in some of the usenet newgroups I read that at least one poster started posting these vulnerability summaries as his.sig. So the data lives on even if the original hoster no longer wants anything to do with them.
But how can the notification of a three move repetition be not an instruction to claim the draw? If all the other programs use the same ambiguous announcement, then you could say that it's not ambiguous, and that it actually _means_ "claim a draw".
However, as some ambiguity does remain it's a good safeguard for the ICGA to specify a list of acceptable phrases that are to be taken to mean "claim a draw" (and thus direct instructions the hyuman may not decline to follow).
Using principles of human linguistics (if that's what people say when they mean X,then it means X) and looking at things in time order: 1) the stronger program had a crap bug. 2) the weaker program did actually draw first it notified the outside world that that state had occured. 3) the human driving it followed the protocol for making the TD aware of this. 4) the TD failed to understand the situation. 5) the human driver broke both the rules by not following the computer's instructions and protocol by continuing to play.
So all three parties went awry here. However, there's nothing against the rules in having bugs, so the first place where something went wrong was the _TD_ dismissing the information he was given as not requiring immediate resolution.
However, the TDs have a very difficult job, and it's an unfortunate situation that's occured.
If I were on a committee (I am for other games with strict protocols, and by heck, we've had a lot worse than this in our time), in review I'd: - award the draw to the computer that claimed it. - admonish the player for breach of protocol. (perhaps disqualification for one tournament). - get lots of feedback from all competing authors, the ICGA exists _for_ them, and must serve their common interests. Yes, rules (protocol) meeetings can be excedingly boring, but it's only when you thrash things out that you can reach conclusions. - issue an unambiguous directive regarding ambiguous statements.
"The ICGA needs a procedure to follow in resolving these disputes"
But it does have one - the inspection of the code. Fritz refused to permit the inspection of his code. ICGA run this show, if Fritz doesn't play by their rules, he's out on his ear. I thought the flexibility offered by the ICGA was perfectly respectable. Remember - this is in the _middle_ of a tournament, decisions need to be made sooner rather than later.
However, I respect Dann Corbit, from my exchanges with him in other fields and believe him to be honest and entirely trustworthy and professional.
So quite probably Fritz is _innocent_ of plagiarism, but _guilty_ of stubornness.
It is their show. Like it or lump it.
I'd like to know what would happen if he were now were to submit his full program source. Would the ICGA lift or shorten the ban? (He is still guilty of not following the expected protocol, after all.)
"PDFs, like HTMLs (only worse), are bandwidth hogs."
PDFs, like HTMLs, don't have to be bandwidth hogs.
Some of the simple PDF generators produce pretty tight files with little overhead. However, it seems that the more advanced ones generate massively more bloat for only fractional improvement in appearance.
The Unpatched IE Vulnerabilities page which the owner voluntarily decided to pull down as he realised that because microsoft really doesn't give a damn about security they couldn't even be _scared_ into fixing the holes? (i.e. I don't think pulling down the page was because he was bought off or otherwise persuaded by MS, I think it's because he's realised that MS are so low that his initial good intentions just didn't work.)
One of the points of that web-page was that the exploits were in fact _very old_ and still hadn't been fixed. So in some ways this story is old old news.
My favourite vulnerability was the "notepad popups" one. Google for it. Then laugh.
Would you say JavaScript was more or less strongly typed than smalltalk? Some have said that smalltalk was the _most_ OO language. (Not I though.) Strong typing does not an OO-language make.
I've read the whole thread, and I agree with absolutely everything you say, apart rom one tiny thing -- this quote from the book -- "The reality is that the eye finds it easiest to read black text on a white background". It's not necessarily true at all. Eyes hate staring at lightbulbs, and that's what white screens are -- great big glowing things.
High contrast is great, essential even, but I so wish that more sites were white on black. Call me gloomy, but I just can't top the old style CRT terminals. Bright amber equals bliss.
For reference, for bigotry profiling purposes, my browser of choice is w3m, and if I'm desparate for variable sized fonts (which are usually a pain), then my I use Opera with JavaScript disabled, cookies disabled for all sites except ones where I actively want to carry some state for the server (e.g. when I'm actually having a 'session'), and neither Flash nor a MIDI player are even installed.
Penn and Teller did "Bullshit" to bust open some of those kinds of things. I'd send you a URL, but sho.com refuses to serve pages to those of us outside the US for some reason.
Christ. I nearly "Foe"'d you on the spot for that. However, on second and third reading I decided against it. It's actually chocka full of goodies if you read it closely!
Itanium 2 actaully contains a fair bit of Alpha technology, and in the right situations is not a bad processor. (It's not my style of processor though, I'm anti-VLIW pro-OOO).
However, if all the investment within DEC and Compaq and HPaq that was diverted to other projects over the last few years had been maintained for the Alpha project, I'm sure that the hypothetical late-2003 Alphas would be more powerful than the I2.
It was burried alive, there's no denying that. Good to see a bunch of them at #2 on the top-500 still. However, I think it's too late to revive it, that's just a pipe-dream now. (As it's potentially commercial suicide for HP, amongst other reasons.)
I think that only IBM can be the new DEC now. Intel/AMD/HP have got backward compatability 'issues' (yeah, the Itanium's an albatross round their neck, and it's only a few years old!). The only "fresh start" that's got a future is the Power architecture. IMHO. (And I say that as an Alpha-fanboy, and not that Power is particularly fresh, but it was designed with as much of a future as the Alpha was - 20 years or so, assumig they don't commit chipicide.).
I find it odd how someone can _still_ whore by posting a single obvious URL, and get to 5 immediately; likewise it's a shame that genuine wit like the above isn't rewarded more swiftly.
Glad to see it on 3 now.
(I'd love a '-1' whoring option..., yes I know I'm OT, sorry.)
You seem confused. USER/ADMINISTRATOR have nothing to do with anything. Did you not know that users can compile things too? And in what way are graphical effects not number-crunching? Most of them involve convolutions, after all. And apache's not Perl. And gcc's not number-crunching. Very very confused.
Disagreed. Debian is the second worst linux out there, but all the other distributions I've encountered are in equal worse place.
It appears you do have a debian fetish, by the looks of it, you seem somewhat obsessed by it. And your incoherent argument never indicated what you think is wrong with debian and apt-get. You appear to not like it/them simply because other people do like it/them.
It's not a minor glitch. It's completely fucking broken.
It's indicative that they didn't think about what they were doing.
If they made such a fuckup in one place, I can't be sure that they haven't made other fuckups in other places.
And in fact they have. They have gradually become sloppier and sloppier about what gets put in their new releases, and their willingness to just overwrite or override configuration files without asking me first, for example. I do not expect sloppiness off Debian. Debian always used to be above that. The relationship of trust which I have had for about 3 years with Debian has finally been worn down to a filigree.
It does only take one straw if the camel's already heavily laden.
I'm using Gentoo on some systems, and it's now looking like it's pretty well thought out and stable. I will therefore try my hand at adminning it on my own systems too.
To mindlessly stick with Debian just because 3 years ago it saved one from the feature-bloat quagmire of SuSE and RedHat is as errant a set of priorities as finally deciding that they rut one's in is heading in a direction one doesn't want to go.
If your life consists of running Gaussian blurs the whole time, then you've got a point.
However for those of us who are software engineers, or website admins, or electronic engineers, then the SPEC marks corresponding to gcc, perl or twolf are REAL-WORLD tests.
Would you like to show me the SPEC results that put an Apple at the top of the heap, as I sure can't find them?
Slashdot Mirror
"
How many available kernel exploits have been identified over the last 5 years of Windows?
"
Sorry - Linux loses here. They don't call it a kernel exploit in windows. It's always an exploit in a separate subsystem instead.
Shhhh! Don't go telling everyone that the subsystem has access to every byte of RAM, and every I/O port, as that would spoil the fun.
YAW.
Fritz is, believe it or not, Fritz Reul's, first name.
A computer program cannot "refuse to permit the inspection of his code".
Computer programs cannot be "_innocent_ of plagiarism, but _guilty_ of stubornness".
It was evidently a human that was being talked about. A human who is called Fritz by dint of his name being, of all things, Fritz.
YAW.
The per capita populations of both vermont and New York are both precisely 1.000.
Is that not what you meant?
YAW.
Add
-buy
to the search to get rid of many of the vendors.
YAW.
I ought to have also said that due to the serious consequences of the allegation, the person who made the allegation and the allegation contents should be put formally on the record. As far as I know this information currently isn't yet publicly known. (Please correct me here if wrong, with URL if poss.)
"Face your accuser", and all that.
Something 6th-amendment-like, for the US readers.
YAW.
Looks like the _data_'s the same, as it is. You'll notice is says:
.sig. So the data lives on even if the original hoster no longer wants anything to do with them.
"Most of links and ids of vulnerabilities were from list maintained by Thor Larholm at PIVX" right at the top.
However, the original site _was pulled_ by the owner, that's beyond question. I've noticed in some of the usenet newgroups I read that at least one poster started posting these vulnerability summaries as his
YAW.
But how can the notification of a three move repetition be not an instruction to claim the draw? If all the other programs use the same ambiguous announcement, then you could say that it's not ambiguous, and that it actually _means_ "claim a draw".
However, as some ambiguity does remain it's a good safeguard for the ICGA to specify a list of acceptable phrases that are to be taken to mean "claim a draw" (and thus direct instructions the hyuman may not decline to follow).
Using principles of human linguistics (if that's what people say when they mean X,then it means X) and looking at things in time order:
1) the stronger program had a crap bug.
2) the weaker program did actually draw first it notified the outside world that that state had occured.
3) the human driving it followed the protocol for making the TD aware of this.
4) the TD failed to understand the situation.
5) the human driver broke both the rules by not following the computer's instructions and protocol by continuing to play.
So all three parties went awry here.
However, there's nothing against the rules in having bugs, so the first place where something went wrong was the _TD_ dismissing the information he was given as not requiring immediate resolution.
However, the TDs have a very difficult job, and it's an unfortunate situation that's occured.
If I were on a committee (I am for other games with strict protocols, and by heck, we've had a lot worse than this in our time), in review I'd:
- award the draw to the computer that claimed it.
- admonish the player for breach of protocol. (perhaps disqualification for one tournament).
- get lots of feedback from all competing authors, the ICGA exists _for_ them, and must serve their common interests. Yes, rules (protocol) meeetings can be excedingly boring, but it's only when you thrash things out that you can reach conclusions.
- issue an unambiguous directive regarding ambiguous statements.
YAW.
"The ICGA needs a procedure to follow in resolving these disputes"
But it does have one - the inspection of the code.
Fritz refused to permit the inspection of his code.
ICGA run this show, if Fritz doesn't play by their rules, he's out on his ear.
I thought the flexibility offered by the ICGA was perfectly respectable. Remember - this is in the _middle_ of a tournament, decisions need to be made sooner rather than later.
However, I respect Dann Corbit, from my exchanges with him in other fields and believe him to be honest and entirely trustworthy and professional.
So quite probably Fritz is _innocent_ of plagiarism, but _guilty_ of stubornness.
It is their show. Like it or lump it.
I'd like to know what would happen if he were now were to submit his full program source. Would the ICGA lift or shorten the ban? (He is still guilty of not following the expected protocol, after all.)
YAW.
"PDFs, like HTMLs (only worse), are bandwidth hogs."
PDFs, like HTMLs, don't have to be bandwidth hogs.
Some of the simple PDF generators produce pretty tight files with little overhead. However, it seems that the more advanced ones generate massively more bloat for only fractional improvement in appearance.
K.I.S.S., every time, thank you.
YAW.
The Unpatched IE Vulnerabilities page which the owner
voluntarily decided to pull down as he realised that
because microsoft really doesn't give a damn about security
they couldn't even be _scared_ into fixing the holes?
(i.e. I don't think pulling down the page was because he
was bought off or otherwise persuaded by MS, I think it's
because he's realised that MS are so low that his initial
good intentions just didn't work.)
One of the points of that web-page was that the exploits
were in fact _very old_ and still hadn't been fixed. So
in some ways this story is old old news.
My favourite vulnerability was the "notepad popups" one.
Google for it. Then laugh.
YAW.
"If you don't want it copied, don't put it on the Internet. Simple as that."
You're not confusing the internet for a mechanism for the distribution of information are you? That's _sooo_ 80s.
YAW.
Would you say JavaScript was more or less strongly typed than smalltalk?
Some have said that smalltalk was the _most_ OO language. (Not I though.)
Strong typing does not an OO-language make.
YAW.
I've read the whole thread, and I agree with absolutely everything you say, apart rom one tiny thing -- this quote from the book -- "The reality is that the eye finds it easiest to read black text on a white background". It's not necessarily true at all. Eyes hate staring at lightbulbs, and that's what white screens are -- great big glowing things.
High contrast is great, essential even, but I so wish that more sites were white on black.
Call me gloomy, but I just can't top the old style CRT terminals. Bright amber equals bliss.
For reference, for bigotry profiling purposes, my browser of choice is w3m, and if I'm desparate for variable sized fonts (which are usually a pain), then my I use Opera with JavaScript disabled, cookies disabled for all sites except ones where I actively want to carry some state for the server (e.g. when I'm actually having a 'session'), and neither Flash nor a MIDI player are even installed.
YAW.
Score: 2, Interesting eh?
Score: 5, Completely pulls carpet from under debian developer's feet , more like.
I've just created a google posting account, and am going around confirming everything wacko I can see on Usenet. Weee!
YAW.
Electrons and positrons have very little rest mass.
The electons in this colision were _not_ at rest.
Energy is mass, remember.
YAW.
Excellent. Thanks for that info.
YAW.
Penn and Teller did "Bullshit" to bust open some of those kinds of things. I'd send you a URL, but sho.com refuses to serve pages to those of us outside the US for some reason.
YAW.
Christ. I nearly "Foe"'d you on the spot for that.
However, on second and third reading I decided against it.
It's actually chocka full of goodies if you read it closely!
YAW.
Itanium 1 blew chunks. Very slowly.
Itanium 2 actaully contains a fair bit of Alpha technology, and in the right situations is not a bad processor. (It's not my style of processor though, I'm anti-VLIW pro-OOO).
However, if all the investment within DEC and Compaq and HPaq that was diverted to other projects over the last few years had been maintained for the Alpha project, I'm sure that the hypothetical late-2003 Alphas would be more powerful than the I2.
It was burried alive, there's no denying that.
Good to see a bunch of them at #2 on the top-500 still.
However, I think it's too late to revive it, that's just a pipe-dream now. (As it's potentially commercial suicide for HP, amongst other reasons.)
I think that only IBM can be the new DEC now. Intel/AMD/HP have got backward compatability 'issues' (yeah, the Itanium's an albatross round their neck, and it's only a few years old!). The only "fresh start" that's got a future is the Power architecture. IMHO.
(And I say that as an Alpha-fanboy, and not that Power is particularly fresh, but it was designed with as much of a future as the Alpha was - 20 years or so, assumig they don't commit chipicide.).
YAW
I find it odd how someone can _still_ whore by posting a single obvious URL, and get to 5 immediately; likewise it's a shame that genuine wit like the above isn't rewarded more swiftly.
Glad to see it on 3 now.
(I'd love a '-1' whoring option..., yes I know I'm OT, sorry.)
YAW.
You seem confused.
USER/ADMINISTRATOR have nothing to do with anything. Did you not know that users can compile things too?
And in what way are graphical effects not number-crunching? Most of them involve convolutions, after all.
And apache's not Perl.
And gcc's not number-crunching.
Very very confused.
YAW.
Disagreed.
Debian is the second worst linux out there, but all the other distributions I've encountered are in equal worse place.
It appears you do have a debian fetish, by the looks of it, you seem somewhat obsessed by it. And your incoherent argument never indicated what you think is wrong with debian and apt-get.
You appear to not like it/them simply because other people do like it/them.
Which is plain stupid.
Do me a favour, don't agree with me again.
YAW.
It's not a minor glitch. It's completely fucking broken.
It's indicative that they didn't think about what they were doing.
If they made such a fuckup in one place, I can't be
sure that they haven't made other fuckups in other places.
And in fact they have. They have gradually become sloppier and sloppier about what gets put in their new releases, and their willingness to just overwrite or override configuration files without asking me first, for example. I do not expect sloppiness off Debian. Debian always used to be above that. The relationship of trust which I have had for about 3 years with Debian has finally been worn down to a filigree.
It does only take one straw if the camel's already heavily laden.
I'm using Gentoo on some systems, and it's now looking like it's pretty well thought out and stable. I will therefore try my hand at adminning it on my own systems too.
To mindlessly stick with Debian just because 3 years ago it saved one from the feature-bloat quagmire of SuSE and RedHat is as errant a set of priorities as finally deciding that they rut one's in is heading in a direction one doesn't want to go.
YAW.
I have a correction to make. Your post is presently marked (Score:1), which is obviously a grave error.
Alas I can't do the honours.
YAW.
If your life consists of running Gaussian blurs the whole time, then you've got a point.
However for those of us who are software engineers, or website admins, or electronic engineers, then the SPEC marks corresponding to gcc, perl or twolf are REAL-WORLD tests.
Would you like to show me the SPEC results that put an Apple at the top of the heap, as I sure can't find them?
YAW.