On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The detail script (draws.php) has a 30-day cutoff, but doing that in
> the summary script would generally cut off mid-week. The messy corner
> case occurs when the time period crosses a year boundary. Thinking
> about it, I should be able to ma
coppro wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> To be more specific: Â Each draws_by_week.php script works correctly, as
>> far as it goes. Â What they is a "leave out data more than X weeks old"
>> cutoff; instead, they include every week from (hardcoded start date) to
>> (e
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> To be more specific: Each draws_by_week.php script works correctly, as
> far as it goes. What they is a "leave out data more than X weeks old"
> cutoff; instead, they include every week from (hardcoded start date) to
> (end of the most recent w
coppro wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> (This goes back to September 21, the first full week in which the
>>> current "1 draw per interested case" clause was in effect. Â draws.php
>>> goes back 30 days from today
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> (This goes back to September 21, the first full week in which the
>> current "1 draw per interested case" clause was in effect. draws.php
>> goes back 30 days from today's date. Side note:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> (This goes back to September 21, the first full week in which the
> current "1 draw per interested case" clause was in effect. draws.php
> goes back 30 days from today's date. Side note: computing week-based
> cutoffs is more tedious than it s
I wrote:
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/draws_by_week.php
[snip]
> (This goes back to September 21, the first full week in which the
> current "1 draw per interested case" clause was in effect. draws.php
> goes back 30 days from today's date. Side note: computing week-based
> cutoffs is mor
coppro wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Draws earned (1 per case)
>> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/draws.php
>> --
>> Sun 25 Oct 10:26:55 Â 2718 coppro
>> Sun 25 Oct 11:28:24 Â 2723 Murphy
>> Sun 25 Oct 11:28:24 Â 2722 Murphy
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, comex wrote:
> Well, *most* definitions in contracts.
You're most likely right: I started to write mine as an act-on-behalf
and then wondered if it was necessary to do so and dropped it, having
that specific legal mechanism definitely makes it stronger.
-G.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Draws earned (1 per case)
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/draws.php
> --
> Sun 25 Oct 10:26:55 2718 coppro
> Sun 25 Oct 11:28:24 2723 Murphy
> Sun 25 Oct 11:28:24 2722 Murphy
> Sun 25 Oct 11:28:24 27
2009/11/17 Aaron Goldfein :
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>>> 6578 1 1.0 Yally Green Deprioritize History
>>
>> CoE: This proposal's chamber is Red.
>>
>
> This time to the public forum.
>
Admitted, but it's not really a CoE but rather identifying s
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 2. If a legal construct (e.g. rule or contract) creates a platonically
>> infinite process that functions "instantaneously" without finite time
>> delay when is triggered by a single (finite) event, it can in fact lead
>> to an infinite
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 2. If a legal construct (e.g. rule or contract) creates a platonically
> infinite process that functions "instantaneously" without finite time
> delay when is triggered by a single (finite) event, it can in fact lead
> to an infinite result. This was never subject to CFJ that
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> There does not exist a instant of time t at which you could call a
> CFJ for which the statement "I have cast an infinite number of votes"
> would be true. -G.
n.b. (you replied in plaintext, so I'm not sure if you saw it) that
was a HTML ma
Ed Murphy wrote:
> c. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
>> wrote:
>>> NUM II AI SUBMITTER CHAMBER TITLE
>>> 6581 1 1.0 G.* GreenBirthdayland
>>
>> I vote FOR an infinite number of times.
>
> I'm treating this as ineffective because
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> I vote FOR an infinite number of times.
>>
>> I'm treating this as ineffective because you couldn't write it
>> out individually.
>
> Sure you can:
>
> I vote FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FO
>
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>> CoE: This CFJ may not exist. Murphy's conditional initiation of a CFJ
>> probably failed on the basis that the conditional was not obvious to
>> evaluate.
>
> Denied. Conditional actions in general don't have this sort of formal
> standard
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> I zoop a CFJ on the statement "This is a CFJ."
>
> Arguments: zooping isn't really defined in this context, but most
> Agorans have a basic idea of what it's meant to mean. Given that I could
> just create a CFJ by announcement, what happens here?
??? It's
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:20 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM, ais523 wrote:
> > CoE: This CFJ may not exist. Murphy's conditional initiation of a CFJ
> > probably failed on the basis that the conditional was not obvious to
> > evaluate.
>
> As much as I wish this were the ca
Wooble wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:37 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> (White ribbons appear to be intended as a reward for
>> continuous registration...)
>
> Mine was a reward for bribing you, but I'm happy to bribe someone
> else. I'm not sure why Murphy hasn't yet.
Name your price, folks, I've g
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM, ais523 wrote:
> CoE: This CFJ may not exist. Murphy's conditional initiation of a CFJ
> probably failed on the basis that the conditional was not obvious to
> evaluate.
As much as I wish this were the case, precedent is that conditions
whose truth values are not
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 08:07 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > I zoop a CFJ on the statement "This is a CFJ."
> >
> > Arguments: zooping isn't really defined in this context, but most
> > Agorans have a basic idea of what it's meant to mean. Given that I could
> > just create a CFJ by
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I vote FOR an infinite number of times.
>
> I'm treating this as ineffective because you couldn't write it
> out individually.
Sure you can:
I vote FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FO
--
-c., who isn't very serious
ais523 wrote:
> I zoop a CFJ on the statement "This is a CFJ."
>
> Arguments: zooping isn't really defined in this context, but most
> Agorans have a basic idea of what it's meant to mean. Given that I could
> just create a CFJ by announcement, what happens here?
Gratuitous evidence:
"Zooping a
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Doesn't need to be Power>1 IMO.
I really hate having that kind of rule power-1. I still give credence
to the argument that conditional votes never worked because R2127's
definition of 'clearly specified' is unreasonable, and its power is
too lo
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 07:40 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:37 AM, ais523 wrote:
> > (White ribbons appear to be intended as a reward for
> > continuous registration...)
>
> Mine was a reward for bribing you, but I'm happy to bribe someone
> else. I'm not sure why Murphy
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:37 AM, ais523 wrote:
> (White ribbons appear to be intended as a reward for
> continuous registration...)
Mine was a reward for bribing you, but I'm happy to bribe someone
else. I'm not sure why Murphy hasn't yet.
> === CFJ 2734 (Interest Index = 0)
>
> Publishing exactly one report that is not in plain text is the
> Class 2 Crime of Making My Eyes Bleed.
> Assigned to Murphy: (as of this message)
Interpretation:
* TRUE if the definitio
coppro wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Aaron Goldfein
>> wrote:
>>> I intend, without objection, to make Normish Partnership 2 Inactive.
>> I register. I Object.
>>
>> --Wooble
> For each variety of Ribbon other than Indigo, I intend, without
> objection, to
c. wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> NUM II AI SUBMITTER CHAMBER TITLE
>> 6581 1 1.0 G.* GreenBirthdayland
>
> I vote FOR an infinite number of times.
I'm treating this as ineffective because you couldn't write it
out indiv
coppro wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> I submit the following Proposal (AI=3, II=0) and make it Distributable:
>> Boilerplate!
>> {
>> Create a new Power-3 rule reading:
>>
>> When an eligible voter on an Agoran decision attempts to cast
>> ballots without explicitly specifying the number of
2009/11/17 comex :
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> This distribution of proposals and the subsequent assigning of ID
>> numbers initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt proposals
>> 6567-6568 and 6570-6580. The eligible voters for these proposals are
>> the
32 matches
Mail list logo
