On Jan 19, 2008 3:03 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 2008 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> One could argue that the URL counts as a single OBJECT vote, ignoring
> >> the content behind that URL.
> >>
> >> I now intend to cause the panel to
root wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One could argue that the URL counts as a single OBJECT vote, ignoring
the content behind that URL.
I now intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND, with instructions to
the judge to consider all of these possible interp
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Another way to put it (with a connection to past precedent) is that the
>contents behind the link have not left the technical domain of control
>of the sender, so the message has not been sent.
Interesting point. You could argue that the TDOC is left when the web
server comp
Ed Murphy wrote:
>How many people have reasonable access to Flash Player these days?
I found that requirement unacceptable. I eschew graphical web browsers
for a variety of reasons, chief among them the submission to external
authority, the hideous user interfaces, and the security problems.
I do
On Jan 14, 2008 1:24 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > We have established precedent that base64 encoding is not an
> > acceptable format for delivering a message containing game actions.
>
> It's acceptable when properly labeled (as you judged in CFJ 1741),
> unaccepta
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, comex wrote:
> Besides, I could have linked to a page controlled by me that displays
> "SUPPORT" or "OBJECT" depending on who views it, or some other equally
> dangerous thing.
Another way to put it (with a connection to past precedent) is that the
contents behind the link h
On Jan 14, 2008 3:24 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How many people have reasonable access to Flash Player these days? If
> it's missing or disabled on their usual machine, then does the page
> clearly indicate what it requires?
There's no native Flash player for amd64 Linux. Now, we
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Why should a link to an external web page that requires Flash Player
>> to view be acceptable?
>
> How many people have reasonable access to Flash Player these days? If
> it's missing or disabled on their usual machine, then does the page
> clearly indicat
root wrote:
> We have established precedent that base64 encoding is not an
> acceptable format for delivering a message containing game actions.
It's acceptable when properly labeled (as you judged in CFJ 1741),
unacceptable otherwise (as I did in CFJ 1580).
I would lean toward any sort of "thi
On Jan 14, 2008 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One could argue that the URL counts as a single OBJECT vote, ignoring
> the content behind that URL.
>
> I now intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND, with instructions to
> the judge to consider all of these possible interpretatio
On Jan 14, 2008 12:16 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The web page contains both "objection" and "support". My opinion is
> that the message thus specified (at least) two votes, hence the
> statement (which implies exactly one vote) is false.
Ah, I misremembered the actual content of t
Goethe wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
I'm confused. You appear to be accepting the appellant's argument
that a URL on its own is not a vote, but asserting that the
"objection" on the web page does constitute a vote. This would lead
to reversing to TRUE, not to affirming.
The we
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I'm confused. You appear to be accepting the appellant's argument
>> that a URL on its own is not a vote, but asserting that the
>> "objection" on the web page does constitute a vote. This would lead
>> to reversing to TRUE, not to affirming.
>
> The web
root wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 9:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM. "Objection" clearly
appears in the web page (not just its URL), so the "multiple votes
-> FALSE that it was exactly one vote" interpretation is correct.
I'm confused. You a
On Jan 14, 2008 9:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM. "Objection" clearly
> appears in the web page (not just its URL), so the "multiple votes
> -> FALSE that it was exactly one vote" interpretation is correct.
I'm confused. You appear to be
On Jan 14, 2008 11:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zefram wrote:
>
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1831b
>
> I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM. "Objection" clearly
> appears in the web page (not just its URL), so the "multiple votes
> -> FALSE
Zefram wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1831b
I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM. "Objection" clearly
appears in the web page (not just its URL), so the "multiple votes
-> FALSE that it was exactly one vote" interpretation is correct.
17 matches
Mail list logo
