I'm curious. What does rejected mean? Is it that you registered and agreed to pay money but then answered a questionnaire and then were rejected (maybe without having to pay)?. Could the system be saying "Based on your answers, there's pretty much no way we're going to be able to find someone for you. We might as well end this relationship before we both waste a bunch of time. It will be best for both of us - even if we don't get your payment."?
Maybe your answers improved slightly between the first and second tries?
I was married long before eH existed. But, while my BS detector goes off with every commercial, I still think the success of such a system seems plausible.
While walking through the woods in Part 9, "Why We Fight" before stumbling upon the Landsberg Concentration Camp.
Frank Perconte: Hey Luz, this forest kinda reminds me of Bastogne.
George Luz: It does huh? Well, except for the fact that there's no snow, we got warm food in out bellies, and trees aren't exploding all around us,... but yeah Frank, it looks a little like Bastogne. -- Smack him for me Bull.
"Bull" Randleman, walking behind, then proceeds to slap Perconte on the back of his helmet.
Who, please name ONE SINGLE person who got killed! One would do.
Repeating spin over and over is not making it any more correct.
Likely, the identity of anyone who was killed because of Wikileaks would remain secret. Unless Wikileaks got a hold of it. In which case, well, it would probably remain secret.
But what if one or two of these gets duped into releasing forged documents? Intelligence agencies all over the world could easily feed plausible false information.
How would this all end? Not very well, I suspect. At least not as regards the credibility of such sites.
Yes, this will likely have the effect of governments exerting greater control over the internet - exactly what the script kiddies would be most outraged by.
What does that have to do with this particular conflict? Or did I just massively "whooshed?"
The parent referenced 'governments vs. the people'. In the case of the US (the particular gov't seeking to protect its documents here) it is a government by, for and of the people.
So, it's really one set of people versus another set of perople.
One one hand we have the group of people elected, or appointed by those elected, under the terms of a constitution which begins "We The People".
On the other hand, we have a group of self appointed, possibly reckless people who serve only an ideology regardless of the practical consequences.
When these two groups come into conflict, I will back the one that is representative of the people - whose representatives are elected by the people, and has checks and balances between it's own branches. Not the one that acts out of its own whims and, in fact, is already fractious.
If Wikileaks was delivering Justin Bieber songs, they'd be shut down. But they're, um, just dumping government secrets.
Imagine if government secrets had the protection that Justin Bieber songs enjoy. That is to say, the government has the same copyright rights as Justin Bieber with regard to documents deemed secret.
If the information contained therein is so significant, why is it not released? Isn't that the whole point of WikiLeaks? Or is WikiLeaks only leaking what it wants to leak?
Or is it something of a personal nature that wouldn't normally serve the public good, but would be released in a vengeful act?
Could a proliferation of the arenic loving life forms cause a problem for those of us who like our phosphor? Could this lead to a war? And who would the good guys be?
They will inevitably end up with mistranslations like 'computer chips' that become 'las papas fritas con sal de la computadora'. I wonder if they can uphold a patent with these kinds of errors...
Translated from English to Japanaese and back again...
Japanese to English translation The present invention, the method to handle comprises four main way is to write data to the database: one to form the bit encoding is compact and efficient than) to link the file to the file and manipulate data files ready to receive additional data; 3) files above to determine the physical memory address potential for data files, comprehensive sufficiently arbitrary memory is divided into blocks of data are By optimizing available memory space of the media, and 2) to form a single memory medium overall data structure with pointers to link a file, all the physical memory space yet to be fully To take full advantage of search in order to allow all the data required to read the small, 4), wherein the lookup table to generate a block dotted with references to the table is added to track physical disk location-related data is needed to read. The invention further system, the method above, so you can write a fixed-size memory media can be used in the database to another computer system, running on the computer system database that contains the first comprising said that, memory access speed, as is reducing the computing power required to obtain such information density of information that is stored in memory media, to increase still enhanced . Listen
Actually, I think it's slightly easier to comprehend now.
So we can start to hope a third party will show up on the scene? One can only hope.
One that uses reasonableness? The whole WikiLeaks problem could be resolved with a simple change to copyright law. If WikiLeaks were posting a bunch of Britnet Spears songs, they'd be shut down by now.
I scanned their complaint and one point they make is arguably valid. According to the article itself, three of the motions fail. But they keep having to respond to them because they're always automatically filed by the purchaser of the forms. This presumably is a waste of the court's time.
But I bet this happens all the time with real lawyers running the show.
Someone will file these documents in a court and Mr. Syfert will notice that they weren't a customer - and will threaten to sue them for copyright infringement unless they settle for $2,500.
Would USCG then publish a set of form motions to defend against this?
I think what they're trying to do doesn't involve the mass retail market. Oh sure, they'd like it to be a hit there, but that's not where their message is the strongest. I think that where they'll try to get their initial momentum is through corporate CIOs. In addition to running Office, WP7 is a platform that can be exploited by the corporate.NET drones Microsoft has been cultivating for all these years. Crates of WP7 phones could be arriving direct without ever going through the retail market.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious. What does rejected mean? Is it that you registered and agreed to pay money but then answered a questionnaire and then were rejected (maybe without having to pay)?. Could the system be saying "Based on your answers, there's pretty much no way we're going to be able to find someone for you. We might as well end this relationship before we both waste a bunch of time. It will be best for both of us - even if we don't get your payment."?
Maybe your answers improved slightly between the first and second tries?
I was married long before eH existed. But, while my BS detector goes off with every commercial, I still think the success of such a system seems plausible.
Wow. An 80% success rate would be much better than I would have thought.
Worse was that Sarkozy chased a rabbit in his office.
From Band of Brothers....
While walking through the woods in Part 9, "Why We Fight" before stumbling upon the Landsberg Concentration Camp.
Frank Perconte: Hey Luz, this forest kinda reminds me of Bastogne.
George Luz: It does huh? Well, except for the fact that there's no snow, we got warm food in out bellies, and trees aren't exploding all around us,... but yeah Frank, it looks a little like Bastogne. -- Smack him for me Bull.
"Bull" Randleman, walking behind, then proceeds to slap Perconte on the back of his helmet.
And at Iron Bottom Sound.
*sigh*
Who, please name ONE SINGLE person who got killed! One would do.
Repeating spin over and over is not making it any more correct.
Likely, the identity of anyone who was killed because of Wikileaks would remain secret. Unless Wikileaks got a hold of it. In which case, well, it would probably remain secret.
And ten more shall take his place
But what if one or two of these gets duped into releasing forged documents? Intelligence agencies all over the world could easily feed plausible false information.
How would this all end? Not very well, I suspect. At least not as regards the credibility of such sites.
Yes, this will likely have the effect of governments exerting greater control over the internet - exactly what the script kiddies would be most outraged by.
What does that have to do with this particular conflict? Or did I just massively "whooshed?"
The parent referenced 'governments vs. the people'. In the case of the US (the particular gov't seeking to protect its documents here) it is a government by, for and of the people.
So, it's really one set of people versus another set of perople.
One one hand we have the group of people elected, or appointed by those elected, under the terms of a constitution which begins "We The People".
On the other hand, we have a group of self appointed, possibly reckless people who serve only an ideology regardless of the practical consequences.
When these two groups come into conflict, I will back the one that is representative of the people - whose representatives are elected by the people, and has checks and balances between it's own branches. Not the one that acts out of its own whims and, in fact, is already fractious.
Me too.
Right. Here's how easy it would be...
If Wikileaks was delivering Justin Bieber songs, they'd be shut down. But they're, um, just dumping government secrets.
Imagine if government secrets had the protection that Justin Bieber songs enjoy. That is to say, the government has the same copyright rights as Justin Bieber with regard to documents deemed secret.
Somehow, I don't find that unreasonable.
http://carbertscurrentevents.blogspot.com/
If the information contained therein is so significant, why is it not released? Isn't that the whole point of WikiLeaks? Or is WikiLeaks only leaking what it wants to leak?
Or is it something of a personal nature that wouldn't normally serve the public good, but would be released in a vengeful act?
Could a proliferation of the arenic loving life forms cause a problem for those of us who like our phosphor? Could this lead to a war? And who would the good guys be?
They will inevitably end up with mistranslations like 'computer chips' that become 'las papas fritas con sal de la computadora'. I wonder if they can uphold a patent with these kinds of errors...
Translated from English to Japanaese and back again...
Japanese to English translation
The present invention, the method to handle comprises four main way is to write data to the database: one to form the bit encoding is compact and efficient than) to link the file to the file and manipulate data files ready to receive additional data; 3) files above to determine the physical memory address potential for data files, comprehensive sufficiently arbitrary memory is divided into blocks of data are By optimizing available memory space of the media, and 2) to form a single memory medium overall data structure with pointers to link a file, all the physical memory space yet to be fully To take full advantage of search in order to allow all the data required to read the small, 4), wherein the lookup table to generate a block dotted with references to the table is added to track physical disk location-related data is needed to read. The invention further system, the method above, so you can write a fixed-size memory media can be used in the database to another computer system, running on the computer system database that contains the first comprising said that, memory access speed, as is reducing the computing power required to obtain such information density of information that is stored in memory media, to increase still enhanced .
Listen
Actually, I think it's slightly easier to comprehend now.
So we can start to hope a third party will show up on the scene? One can only hope.
One that uses reasonableness? The whole WikiLeaks problem could be resolved with a simple change to copyright law. If WikiLeaks were posting a bunch of Britnet Spears songs, they'd be shut down by now.
http://carbertscurrentevents.blogspot.com/
I assume this is to create possible avenues for appeal?
The standing issue centers on the defendent. Not the plaintiff.
Syfert wants to sell thousands of them.
These lawyers are working for the copyright holders and are filing in their name.
I scanned their complaint and one point they make is arguably valid. According to the article itself, three of the motions fail. But they keep having to respond to them because they're always automatically filed by the purchaser of the forms. This presumably is a waste of the court's time.
But I bet this happens all the time with real lawyers running the show.
Someone will file these documents in a court and Mr. Syfert will notice that they weren't a customer - and will threaten to sue them for copyright infringement unless they settle for $2,500.
Would USCG then publish a set of form motions to defend against this?
I think what they're trying to do doesn't involve the mass retail market. Oh sure, they'd like it to be a hit there, but that's not where their message is the strongest. I think that where they'll try to get their initial momentum is through corporate CIOs. In addition to running Office, WP7 is a platform that can be exploited by the corporate .NET drones Microsoft has been cultivating for all these years. Crates of WP7 phones could be arriving direct without ever going through the retail market.
So sign your rights over to another patent troll. It wouldn't solve anything, but it would be fun. And free.
Imagine staring into his kindly, beary face as he pumps you full of morphine.