Wally 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (3172)

• On the post: Iran's New Jet Can Fly (In Photoshop, At Least)!

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 04:53pm

  Well this should settle things rather quickly:
  
  http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/f313.2.jpg
  
  It isn't even flyable at all. The welding on that this is absolute crap....look underneath the wing with the light reactions.
  
  This is Iranian propaganda at its best.....comical at all levels....to those of us viewing it.

• On the post: RIAA Still Can't Figure Out How To Use Google's DMCA Tools, Blames Google

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 08:20am

  Re: Re: Re:

  SOPA.....That's why....

• On the post: RIAA Still Can't Figure Out How To Use Google's DMCA Tools, Blames Google

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 08:19am

  Re: Re: Re:

  Is it my imagination or did you just miss an opportunity to actually get noticed for your work??

• On the post: RIAA Still Can't Figure Out How To Use Google's DMCA Tools, Blames Google

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 08:04am

  Re:

  Why the heck would you break the law in filing DMCA notices over items which you had absolutely no responsibility in creating?

• On the post: RIAA Still Can't Figure Out How To Use Google's DMCA Tools, Blames Google

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:57am

  Re: Re: Re:

  Who says cable company ISP's don't already have a monopoly?? Comcast/Universal merger anyone?

• On the post: RIAA Still Can't Figure Out How To Use Google's DMCA Tools, Blames Google

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:56am

  Re: Re: Re:

  Ironically....1984......
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

• On the post: 'Attribution' Troll On Press Inc. Now 50% Less 'Troll-like!' Also: NOT Yelling At People Sells More Books!

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:32am

  Re: Re:

  You could be right about the foreign bit. The do called "trolling" by other tweeters...think of the lesson learned in publicity here.

• On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:29am

  Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

  "9 and 1/4 inches is a strange number when it comes to page length. Most of us know paper (so long as we're not in Europe or Asia) as being 8 and 1/2 inches wide by 11 inches high, commonly referred to as "Letter" size paper. If you take a standard sheet of Letter paper and fold it over, you get a booklet that is 5 and 1/2 inches by 8 and 1/2 inches. For the Supreme Court's purposes, that for whatever reason doesn't work. (Interestingly, the dimensions of the printed text block easily fit on a Letter sheet of paper, so Rule 33.1 could be said to be designed to mandate slightly bigger margins, and nothing more.)"
  
  Likely for larger margins, but the average filing cabinet vanilla envelope also has those dimensions. Once again, storage argument.

• On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:26am

  Re: saddle stitch

  In my day we called those Brads nails.... :-)

• On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:24am

  Re: Re: Re:

  Shouldn't that be a red flag to Aaron Greenspan's statements then?

• On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:22am

  Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

  On a further note, please ask your lawyer why there is a reason for the highest circuit in the US Supreme Court asks for a certain paper size.
  
  
  Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if Greenspan tried to outright claim Aaron Swartz's works as his own after he dug around for enough information.

• On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:17am

  Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

  Yes because you've always never trolled have you. I got news for you asshole. I was making a statement and it went overboard. All you are doing is derping.

• On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:16am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

  By hundredths of an inch??? Really??? You're going to pick at my argument because I used the North American standard of A4 paper...which is 8.5x11?

• On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:12am

  Re: Re: Re:

  Try looking at the dimensions of a filing cabinet some time....

• On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:10am

  Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

  Weren't those the dimensions put out by Greenspan himself???

• On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:09am

  Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

  I promise you Mike that this was never meant as an attack towards you. I just ask that you try to keep an open mind. The paper standard Greenspan is asking for deteriorate faster than the type of paper demanded by the US Supreme Court. I promise you that the system set it up like that for easier storage in the average sized filing cabinet. Why I went into dimensions I will never know.
  
  You are buying into the gripes of a known copyright troll by agreeing somewhat with Greenspan. While I believe the rest of his complaint is totally legitimate, the one about the paper...isn't. The type of paper being asked for lasts longer due to the chemistry of the paper itself.

• On the post: Court Won't Block CNET From Offering BitTorrent Downloads: Not In The Public Interest To Stifle Public Discussion

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 10:45am

  Does anyone reading this article realize that the real reason that the court sided with CNet is based on their legitimate use of the BitTorrent system? I mean I really don't mean to be a Bob here, nor an OOTB, but it seems to me that it's more viable to believe that the court system actually recognized legitimate use.
  
  I mean really, the court recognized that CNet uses bit torrent to distribute its content. They aren't that stupid any more.
  
  DMCA Article 17 ?512, paragraphs M, O, T, U, V, and X cover the legitimate uses of P2P networks concerning content distribution. The judge recognized it and stated there was no evidence of infringement nor willful infringement by CNet, and no evidence of plans for willful infringement.
  
  It's cut and dry. Hence no need for public discussion on it.

• On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 10:08am

  Mike Mansick....all is cool...we were all wrong.

  Ok, let me explain this is no attack to you personally. I know it seems I came close to being Bob there for a moment. Please hear me out and please tell me what you think of this.
  
  There may be a very specific reason for the odd sizes that the US Supreme Courts demand. It took a lot of fiddling around with a dossier. I just happened to have some left over paper from my brother's disability case...Ohio uses the same standards.
  
  The reason for the extra width of paper...9.25 inches = 9 1/4 inches... ( or whatever the hell they demand you use ) is that three-ring binders take up a lot of space. A lot of these Supreme Court cases are stored in the ever expanding national archive. The paper size still has the print confined to standard US letter paper or Type A4 Xerox paper (choose your poison). So why the weird dimensions??
  
  It turns out that when you store a dossier in a filing cabinet, it is imperative that the papers stay where they are. The use of three brads staples to bind the dossier as a book like a three ring binder saves space. The extra inch or so in width is to allow the text to be unhindered and unobstructed from view when the documents inside the dossier are bound to it. That's just the width.
  
  The extra length in standard legal documents is simple....foot notes or photos to attach to the documents (note the close dimensions for note cards being similar to that of the average 5x7 photograph).
  
  In essence it is only for preservation so that the decisions can be referenced by others.
  
  In the tech world, redundancy is a beautiful thing. It allows for fault tolerance in case part of a system fails. Storing the documents in that way in a dossier allows for a redundancy in case technology breaks down.

• On the post: Armed UK Police Raid House Over Facebook Picture Showing Toy Weapon In Background

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 09:47am

  My father's first telescope had a jery-rigged mortar stand. Judging by that picture, that tripod is specifically made for a telescope :-) Glyn Moody, is there any word out across the pond on whether on not Ian Driscoll was an armature astronomer?

• On the post: RIAA Still Can't Figure Out How To Use Google's DMCA Tools, Blames Google

  

  Wally ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 07:49am

  Man I wish the RIAA would just shut up. They really don't get the fact that Google's search engine is a spider web crawler. Removing one link only mean it gets put further down in ranking until more websites start linking to it again.

Next >>