You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Result of the court hearing 12th July 2010
- Thread starter dv pidit
- Start date
@kwame o you are right the case hasn't been won yet perhaps if one would to speak on it, you would probably say the case going to DOS but might be ordered by the judge to re-instate the 22k.Well it hasn't been won so anything can happen.But DOS self DEY 4UCK UP?
NO, if the first result is to be re-instated, it would be the whole May 1st winners that would be re-instated not just the 22k because the other 78k who didn't check their status before the site went down did nothing wrong! As someone who was at the hearing yesterday quotes the judge "the judge commented, at the beginning of the hearing yesterday, that making a decision about the injunction is equivalent to making a deicion about our case. She sees the issue as involving not only the 22,000 who knew they were selected but also the 78,000 who were selected and never knew it".
IMO, with the perception the judge has, I highly doubt she will order DOS to re-instate the previous winners that the 98% came from the first two days, and i also think it's not a good idea for the ex 22k because it's hard to fight for that when what happened (Computer gilitch) is so glaring! So at the end, what's been fought for now is to re-instate the whole may 1st results or a new re-draw that will be published on friday!
Last edited by a moderator:
whataboutno
Banned
well let's see.
you tell me that if your casino cheated we should accept it as "a god's hand"?? lol
this game has rules. we call it a law. there's no "what if". and justice for all..silly africans and ruskis
you tell me that if your casino cheated we should accept it as "a god's hand"?? lol
this game has rules. we call it a law. there's no "what if". and justice for all..silly africans and ruskis
I read this moring what Amin wrote again and it doesn't make any sense for me. I don't get the point when he's talking about that applications were stored on different hard drives. From my knowlege, each entry gets from the database software once the you send it a unique ID and it doesn't matter if the software then save it at KCC or on a hard drive on Mars.
What he wrote goes more in the direction of a random drawing.
What he wrote goes more in the direction of a random drawing.
If it were on Mars, the delay would be even longer, because no signal could go faster than the speed of light and light goes to Mars at least several minutes.From my knowlege, each entry gets from the database software once the you send it a unique ID and it doesn't matter if the software then save it at KCC or on a hard drive on Mars
What he is probably trying to say that if you inserted values into Oracle database in certain order using INSERT statement, and then access those values with a SELECT statement without ORDER BY clause, the order in what they are retrieved is not guaranteed. It is optimized by the database, it should not necessarily be the same as the order in what the records were inserted.lol, thats right but it doesn't matter because the data set already has it's unique ID at this point.
But is this not an argument pro random?It is optimized by the database, it should not necessarily be the same as the order in what the records were inserted.
I do not have enough statistics for regions other than Europe.DoS says that the randomization process failed entirely and petitions were taken by mostly solid piece from 5th and 6th Oct. If that's right then I understand nothing. 100,000 winners out of 19,000,000 petitions is 1/190 and isn't even close to 1/6. Who can explain?
I'll talk about DV-2011, because I have statistics ready.
Out of 12 million entries worldwide only 1.5 million were from Europe. 31,000 entries were selected.
1/6 is not how many were selected. That is how many applied on the first two days. So, if I would assume that in DV-2012 everything would be the same as in DV-2011 (which is not the case), then 1/6 of 1.5 million entries from Europe were submitted on 5th or 6th of October. That is 250,000.
However, 1/6 - that is the proportion for those entrants who really submitted their entries themselves, without middlemen. With those who used middlemen or even fake entries (from phonebook) the number is probably much smaller.
That depends on definition of random. Somehow Amin uses the same wrong definition as White does - without any aim or purpose. That is absurd. Within that meaning he is trying to explain why Oracle's optimization algorithm were not random (exactly answering your question) - because they had aim and purpose - optimizing performance. Hence, the stuff was not random (in that wrong definition).But is this not an argument pro random?
Instead, he should have used correct definition, common in random sampling. About using standard software made for the purpose of random sampling. Oracle SELECT statement was not made for the purpose of random sampling.
I'm back to laugh at you!
I will really enjoy your endless scream!
Because you had a chance to be re-elected. Now that you lost the court it's that you will NEVER see USA! NEVER!
You will NOT get a single visa EVER in yourlife!
Enjoy poverty of your countries.
How do you know they lost ? The decision hasn't been announced yet.
good for you, you have the last laugh!!Just listen to me. I didn't come here NOT to listen to the CRY.
I WILL.
Just wait and see.
but they still have a chance to find out if they have been selected.....until after midnight, that's when they will know for sure, they don't have another chance!I'm back to laugh at you!
I will really enjoy your endless scream!
Because you had a chance to be re-elected. Now that you lost the court it's that you will NEVER see USA! NEVER!
You will NOT get a single visa EVER in yourlife!
Enjoy poverty of your countries.
direstra1ts
Registered Users (C)
im happy to see some sick people like @GovorimPRO he makes me laugh, little monkey.