Maybe chess-playing people just don't like losing to computers. After all, the article mentioned by the OP states that:
Not since IBM’s Deep Blue cheated to beat Garry Kasparov in 1997 has the world of computer chess been so uproarious!
As if it were a fact. Was this ever found to be the case? I thought it was only alleged by Kasparov and never proven. Since the 34-person panel of chess-playing programmers never saw the source code to Rybka, yet still concluded that different versions were plagiarizer different open source codes, maybe the chess-playing community is a bunch of whining losers?
An interesting note is that the article doesn't state if any of the 34-person panel of chess-playing programmers contributed code to any of the allegedly plagiarized codes. There may be a conflict of interest here.
Many people choose not to disclose their inventions and keep them a trade secret. This is done for a good reason. Disclosure, even under an NDA, doesn't guarantee it won't get disclosed to those you don't want to disclose it to.
In this case we have a panel of 34 programming chess players. Would you want anyone of that group to see your code if you want to keep it away from programming, chess-playing people?
Since Rybka's source was not released, let alone compared, they sure seem sure of their conclusions.
Also, the article states that they "unfairly cheated" but, aside from not disclosing the alleged plagiarized work, why is that "unfair". Or is the use of the open source codes considered "unfair".
Ars Technica and Peter Bright are entitled to their opinion. Keep in mind that the Enterprise IT managers are getting hammered on both ends: Keeping up to date with the rapid development of new programs and simultaneously ensuring that everything works as it should. I suppose what's good for the "Web itself" is not necessarily good for the Enterprise.
As far as I can tell, Obama just does whatever he thinks is going to get him re-elected, and does his best to play both sides in pursuit of that goal. He doesn't seem to have any moral fiber whatsoever, and is a total psychopath. Bush, for all his faults and being a total sell-out to certain corporations, seemed to at least believe in his delusional mind that he was doing the right thing; I don't think Obama cares at all about doing "the right thing". Of course, this shouldn't be a surprise since he's a lawyer, a part of an entire profession of people who care nothing at all about what's right or wrong or even true, just making themselves richer.
Nobody is preventing you from studying computer science, so quit your whining!
If you want to study computer science, and only computer science, then just do that. There are plenty of colleges and universities offering associate degree programs and trade schools that teach programming and only programming. There are plenty of articles, books, and online resources that demonstrate and illustrate programming techniques and details.
Don't expect someone to just hand you a bachelors in science without completing the entire curriculum. If you are too lazy to complete the minimum requirements of a BS degree you shouldn't expect to be conferred one. Besides, plenty of talented programmers don't have a BS in CS and many poor programmers do.
I am not trying to protect Obama. I think he should be impeached. Of course Obama literally signed-off on it. He just wasn't calling the shots during his first year in office. Pelosi and her Democratic Party cronies were running things. When she said "jump", Obama would say "how high". Obama is the teleprompter president. Early on, he wasn't in control of what was on the teleprompter. Even now, I am not certain that he is.
----- Welcome to the USA. Former jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
You, my friend, are an exception to the rule. Most people, like you and I, actually need or prefer a small device with all of these items. Most people, do not.
I should have been a lawyer. They have so much power. Apparently they can just write letters to companies to do their bidding regardless of anyone else's rights. So, now we have a situation where, if there are enough copyright complaints, let alone valid ones, the ISPs must comply. No due process at all---it's all about the all-powerful squeaky hinge.
Trooper: This usage is covered under fair use. Ben: The copyrights are for sale if you want them Trooper: Let me see your writ. Luke fumbles around looking for a signed writ. Ben (in a controlled voice): There is no fair use Trooper: There is no fair use Ben: These aren't the rights you are looking for Trooper: These aren't the rights you are looking for Ben: We can stop his business Trooper You can stop his business Ben (to Luke): Move along. Trooper: Move along. Move along.
----- Welcome to the USA. Former jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
The only advantage netbooks currently have is that they have a keyboard for long text entries (e.g. word processing). Technology changes. Tablets (like the iPad & Samsung Tab 10.1) have screens that are nicer than most netbooks and no hard drives, have longer battery life, almost 100% up-time, and are easier to use. Since most people only used their netbooks for social media and web browsing why bother with the complication of an actual PC. Netbooks also made lousy PCs. Screens are too small, Too little memory, too little processor horsepower to play games, etc. Linux is irrelevant.
I most wholeheartedly disagree. The USPTO is not doing a fine job. As someone who has acquired several patents from other Examining Groups in the USPTO I see a tremendous disparity among the Examining Groups as to how non-obvious and combination are used to disqualify patents.
Also, prior art is not irrelevant. Prior art includes other patents and combination of ideas from other patents (taking a part of an idea in one patent and combining it with another idea from another patent). The Examining Group reviewing Technology Center 2100 (patent applications including Computer Architecture Software and Information Security) apparently doesn't look at this at all while other Examining Groups (such as those for Technology Center 1700) the examiners scrutinize this quite thoroughly.
Apparently different divisions of the USPTO have completely different thresholds for obviousness. I have a very hard time beliving that it wouldn't be obvious to people having ordianry skill in the art to come up with the same ideas. Especially in light of other existing patents. Very poor work by the USPTO!!!
Slashdot Mirror
You can reverse engineer all you want. It's still speculation.
Show me the code.
I didn't realize he could program.
Sad but true.
(BTW: That's a great film.)
This explains it, but without an exact source:
http://blog.chess.com/clizaw/did-ibm-cheat-kasparov
If the panel hasn't seen the code, how do they know it was derived from anything else?
Maybe chess-playing people just don't like losing to computers. After all, the article mentioned by the OP states that:
As if it were a fact. Was this ever found to be the case? I thought it was only alleged by Kasparov and never proven.
Since the 34-person panel of chess-playing programmers never saw the source code to Rybka, yet still concluded that different versions were plagiarizer different open source codes, maybe the chess-playing community is a bunch of whining losers?
An interesting note is that the article doesn't state if any of the 34-person panel of chess-playing programmers contributed code to any of the allegedly plagiarized codes. There may be a conflict of interest here.
Many people choose not to disclose their inventions and keep them a trade secret. This is done for a good reason. Disclosure, even under an NDA, doesn't guarantee it won't get disclosed to those you don't want to disclose it to.
In this case we have a panel of 34 programming chess players. Would you want anyone of that group to see your code if you want to keep it away from programming, chess-playing people?
Since Rybka's source was not released, let alone compared, they sure seem sure of their conclusions.
Also, the article states that they "unfairly cheated" but, aside from not disclosing the alleged plagiarized work, why is that "unfair". Or is the use of the open source codes considered "unfair".
Ars Technica and Peter Bright are entitled to their opinion.
Keep in mind that the Enterprise IT managers are getting hammered on both ends: Keeping up to date with the rapid development of new programs and simultaneously ensuring that everything works as it should. I suppose what's good for the "Web itself" is not necessarily good for the Enterprise.
It's not the first time, it won't be the last.
You hit the nail on the head!
Nobody is preventing you from studying computer science, so quit your whining!
If you want to study computer science, and only computer science, then just do that. There are plenty of colleges and universities offering associate degree programs and trade schools that teach programming and only programming. There are plenty of articles, books, and online resources that demonstrate and illustrate programming techniques and details.
Don't expect someone to just hand you a bachelors in science without completing the entire curriculum. If you are too lazy to complete the minimum requirements of a BS degree you shouldn't expect to be conferred one. Besides, plenty of talented programmers don't have a BS in CS and many poor programmers do.
I am not trying to protect Obama. I think he should be impeached.
Of course Obama literally signed-off on it. He just wasn't calling the shots during his first year in office. Pelosi and her Democratic Party cronies were running things. When she said "jump", Obama would say "how high".
Obama is the teleprompter president. Early on, he wasn't in control of what was on the teleprompter. Even now, I am not certain that he is.
-----
Welcome to the USA. Former jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
The US Congress (i.e. Pelosi and friends) was responsible for the bailing out Government Motors and Chrysler.
You, my friend, are an exception to the rule. Most people, like you and I, actually need or prefer a small device with all of these items. Most people, do not.
With all that Obama has on his plate, serving special interests like this is low priority. Besides, he's not really a champion of big business.
I should have been a lawyer. They have so much power. Apparently they can just write letters to companies to do their bidding regardless of anyone else's rights.
So, now we have a situation where, if there are enough copyright complaints, let alone valid ones, the ISPs must comply. No due process at all---it's all about the all-powerful squeaky hinge.
Trooper: This usage is covered under fair use.
Ben: The copyrights are for sale if you want them
Trooper: Let me see your writ.
Luke fumbles around looking for a signed writ.
Ben (in a controlled voice): There is no fair use
Trooper: There is no fair use
Ben: These aren't the rights you are looking for
Trooper: These aren't the rights you are looking for
Ben: We can stop his business
Trooper You can stop his business
Ben (to Luke): Move along.
Trooper: Move along. Move along.
-----
Welcome to the USA. Former jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
When all of the business are in collusion, the consumer has no power.
The only advantage netbooks currently have is that they have a keyboard for long text entries (e.g. word processing).
Technology changes. Tablets (like the iPad & Samsung Tab 10.1) have screens that are nicer than most netbooks and no hard drives, have longer battery life, almost 100% up-time, and are easier to use. Since most people only used their netbooks for social media and web browsing why bother with the complication of an actual PC.
Netbooks also made lousy PCs. Screens are too small, Too little memory, too little processor horsepower to play games, etc.
Linux is irrelevant.
I most wholeheartedly disagree. The USPTO is not doing a fine job. As someone who has acquired several patents from other Examining Groups in the USPTO I see a tremendous disparity among the Examining Groups as to how non-obvious and combination are used to disqualify patents.
Also, prior art is not irrelevant. Prior art includes other patents and combination of ideas from other patents (taking a part of an idea in one patent and combining it with another idea from another patent). The Examining Group reviewing Technology Center 2100 (patent applications including Computer Architecture Software and Information Security) apparently doesn't look at this at all while other Examining Groups (such as those for Technology Center 1700) the examiners scrutinize this quite thoroughly.
This isn't consistently applied in the US. Might as well get rid of it.
----
Welcome to the USA. Former jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
Apparently different divisions of the USPTO have completely different thresholds for obviousness. I have a very hard time beliving that it wouldn't be obvious to people having ordianry skill in the art to come up with the same ideas. Especially in light of other existing patents.
Very poor work by the USPTO!!!
this isn't one of them!
Not even close.
Besides, what's next? People with anosmia requiring close captioning to describe the smell?
This is an excellent example of, just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Welcome to the USA.
Former home of the US Constitution.
Exactly! They are only passing laws. If the Dutch are content with it, who cares?