With the advent of the civilized, considerate, practice of marking "off
topic" messages "OT" hereabouts (apparently an excellent practice, in most
of our opinions), many have noted that replies to the original messages in a
"Thread" so marked do not retain the all important "OT" designation.
In most cases this is actually the result of the OP using a reserved
"control character" to delineate the "OT", such as the colon in "OT:".
In an attempt to conform to RFC Internet protocols, many mail/news clients
strip out what are considered "encoded words" and/or other characters that
precede, without a space, these control characters that are used to
terminate/modify message header information.
(See RFC #822, and others, for more information on the structure of header
fields)
Some newsreaders follow protocol, some do not, (recent versions of OE do
this routinely, while most versions of Forte Agent do not), so to insure
your original message contains the off topic designation, it is a good
practice to NOT use a ":" immediately preceding the "OT:", thusly, in the
subject header of your OT marked messages if you wish all threaded replies
to remain marked "OT".
Strictly FWIW ... YMMV
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>> I'm fairly sure the "2038 Bug" is not going to present _me_ much of a
>>>> problem ...
>>> you sure? certain financial places have been running into this problem.
>>> seems that a 30 year mortgage obtained this year runs out in 2038....
>>>
>> Emphasis on the "me". Since 2038 will be the 95th anniversary of my
>> birth and I don't recall any of my relatives ever hitting the 90 mark,
>> I doubt I'll be around to be affected by it.
>>
> Just curious, did you pull 2038 out of your ass, just add 30 years, or were
> you aware of the potential problem?
>
> Seriously.
Seriously, I just pulled the 30 years out of my ass, Tom just went with
it.
I used 30 years because thats roughly how long Gates has been infecting
the planet with his virus.
I might add that immediately after my original post on this my PC
crashed, and because of a simple hardware problem, Windows XP in all
it's splendor SCREWED ME once again. I guess it was poetic justice in a
way.
Something like this happened to a friend of mine just 2 weeks ago. I
told him how to fix it but instead, he went out and bought a new
computer... THEN he did what I told him and he now has 2 computers.
This is the problem with dammed windows, it is a predator virus that
pisses off the competent and kills the innocent.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
On Aug 13, 1:44=A0pm, "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your position,
> > even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.
>
> As a dumbass woodworker, who enjoys a good off topic discussion from time=
to
> time, finds your scathing, arrogant manner totally uncomfortable.
>
> As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't know any better you know, the only =
way
> I can escape your relentless vitriol, is to killfile you.
>
> As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't see any alternative.
>
> <Plonk>
>
> Lee
> A Dumbass Woodworker
Ohhh, I don't know, Lee. There are dumb ass woodworkers and guys like
you and I and many others who aren't dumb ass woodworkers. Jack Stein
put himself in the dumb-ass category, I don't think he put anybody
else in there with him. He could be there all by himself...but that's
unlikely.
And I don't see you as dumb ass.
r
Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:24:08 -0700, "charlie"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>><Tom Veatch> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> ..
>>> I'm fairly sure the "2038 Bug" is not going to present _me_ much of a
>>> problem ...
>>
>>you sure? certain financial places have been running into this problem.
>>seems that a 30 year mortgage obtained this year runs out in 2038....
>>
>
> Emphasis on the "me". Since 2038 will be the 95th anniversary of my
> birth and I don't recall any of my relatives ever hitting the 90 mark,
> I doubt I'll be around to be affected by it.
>
Just curious, did you pull 2038 out of your ass, just add 30 years, or were
you aware of the potential problem?
Seriously.
;-)
--
Froz...
Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:26:45 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Gates has single handedly
>> set computing back at least 30 years so far
>
> So, what you're saying is that if Bill Gates had never existed, the
> state of computing today, would be the same as what it will be ca.
> 2038?
> Not sure I buy that.
What I'm saying is that with Bill Gates illegally monopolizing the PC
operating system scene for the past 30 years, instead of healthy
competition where the best products are used, the consumer has been
stuck in using the worlds worst operating system, and have been stuck
there for around 30 years. Vista seems to be no different, or possibly
the worse of the bunch from what I've been hearing.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
On Aug 12, 6:06=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
> > How's that?
>
> <plonk>
>
> How's that?
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
I heard a <plonk>... I wonder who is nearby??
Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:26:45 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Gates has single handedly
>>set computing back at least 30 years so far
>
> So, what you're saying is that if Bill Gates had never existed, the
> state of computing today, would be the same as what it will be ca.
> 2038?
>
> Not sure I buy that.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
Nothing much ever changes.
--
Froz...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:01:24 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Tom Watson" wrote
>
>> You know what I like best about these. 'how many angels can fit on the
>> head of a pin', posts?
>>
>> It means that we are not being bothered by anything that is really
>> important.
>>
>> That makes me happy.
>
>Sorry 'bout the colateral splatter, Bubba ... but you, of all people, should
>be well aware that you can't do a 'public service' hereabouts without a
>little pissing contest. :)
>
> --
>www.e-woodshop.net
>Last update: 5/14/08
>KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
I just looked over to the choir and they said, "Amen!"
(it was really loud, too)
Regards, Tom.
Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:10:32 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>My money is on Thunderbird vs OE with re: to following protocol but I'm
>always looking for MS getting something right...
>
>--
>Jack
>http://jbstein.com
Micro$oft has done many things both right and wrong, sometimes at the same time
and in the same application, IMHO..
What they almost always do well is marketing..
Just use ME operating system as an example of how you can sell shit in a bag, if
you market it enough..
How many of us, beginning with Dos, have been unpaid beta testers for M$?
Can we get a show of hands? lol
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:17:40 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I didn't read his cite, but "convicted means proven guilty.
You should.
Guilt or innocence is not a factor in civil proceedings, so Microsoft
could not have been "convicted" or "proven guilty" in the cited
action. True, the original trial court ruled for the DOJ, the
plaintiff. However, the findings of the trial court were overturned on
appeal and remanded for retrial. The suit was then settled prior to
trial. So essentially, the contention that Microsoft has been found
"guilty" of anything in a court of law is not supported by the cite.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
"Swingman" wrote
>
> On that same note (corporate/government ineptness) can someone who has
> qualified for Medicare longer than I tell why the hell a Medicare Card is
> just that much bigger than a credit card so that it can not possibly fit
> in
> a wallet?
>
Reminds me of a (paper) newsletter that was sent out to support some kinda
special software that I needed to maintain. This was some odd size that
could NOT be put into any file, folder or binder. It created absolute havoc
because there was no way to store this much needed info. I raised hell
about it. So did a lot of other folks.
After a month or two, they relented and whined that it would cost a litttle
more to publish a standard sized newsletter that could actually be
stored/used properly. A year or two later it came out that they got the
idea from Microsoft. Why am I not surprised?
On Aug 4, 2:38=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "mac davis" wrote
>
> > How many of us, beginning with Dos, have been unpaid beta testers for M=
$?
> > Can we get a show of hands? lol
>
> I once liked _most_ of what MSFT did, and still think that, in general, t=
he
> ultimate impact they have had on "personal computing" since the DOS days =
is
> more on the plus side than the negative ... but not necessarily the way t=
hey
> _did_ it.
>
> That said, MSFT, like most corporations these days, appears to be current=
ly
> full of blithering idiots, .
>
> On that same note (corporate/government ineptness) can someone who has
> qualified for Medicare longer than I tell why the hell a Medicare Card is
> just that much bigger than a credit card so that it can not possibly fit =
in
> a wallet?
>
> Just wondering ...
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 5/14/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
So it won't fit in a standard card reader? So the 'system' HAS to buy
the Siemens Hospital Installation Lobby's (aka SHIT) 'special' medical
card reader for....ermmmmm $11,786.00?.... plus their software and
proprietary cabling.
Now as that cynical or skeptical?... I'm going with cynical.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> What I'm saying is that with Bill Gates illegally monopolizing the PC
> operating system scene for the past 30 years, instead of healthy
Funny how you have no compunctions about criticising Gates and his
contribution to the computer world, yet your headers show that you feel
quite comfortable using Windows software. Can you spell hyocrite? Have you
ever *heard* the word before?
> there for around 30 years. Vista seems to be no different, or possibly
> the worse of the bunch from what I've been hearing.
MS-DOS didn't exist 30 years in 1978 and the first independent version of
windows was about 1985. So that blows your 30 year time frame out of the
water. Quite obviously, you believe most of what you hear and direct your
life on hearsay and innuendo without taking one moment to back up or confirm
anything that you've heard. Just as obviously, you haven't even seen Vista
in operation much less actually used it.
Very simply, you're just another flake running with the mob. Well, chicken
little, I'm here to tell you that the sky is indeed falling and that you
should take immediate shelter because you're about to get rained on big
time.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:47:04 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>With the advent of the civilized, considerate, practice of marking "off
>topic" messages "OT" hereabouts (apparently an excellent practice, in most
>of our opinions), many have noted that replies to the original messages in a
>"Thread" so marked do not retain the all important "OT" designation.
>
>In most cases this is actually the result of the OP using a reserved
>"control character" to delineate the "OT", such as the colon in "OT:".
>
>In an attempt to conform to RFC Internet protocols, many mail/news clients
>strip out what are considered "encoded words" and/or other characters that
>precede, without a space, these control characters that are used to
>terminate/modify message header information.
>
>(See RFC #822, and others, for more information on the structure of header
>fields)
>
>Some newsreaders follow protocol, some do not, (recent versions of OE do
>this routinely, while most versions of Forte Agent do not), so to insure
>your original message contains the off topic designation, it is a good
>practice to NOT use a ":" immediately preceding the "OT:", thusly, in the
>subject header of your OT marked messages if you wish all threaded replies
>to remain marked "OT".
>
>Strictly FWIW ... YMMV
Curiously enough, RFC 822 does not address the issue of the embedded
colon in the subject line at all. In fact it specifically defines the
subject as an unparsed text string. As best I can recall from many
years ago the "proper" method of dealing with a modifier in the
subject was to test for the colon and, if present do nothing, if not
present to prepend a "re:" at the beginning. When properly implemented
you can use "OT:" and follow-ups will come out as "OT:". If poorly
implemented you get "re: OT:". I haven't the time to try to search out
what is really the desired behavior, but clearly one that allows for
tagging posts as "OT:" is better behaved than one that forces you to
use "OT - " or some such, producing "re: OT - " in the follow-ups.
Granted, a properly threading newsreader will not be fooled, but I
don't think that OE threads properly anyway. Forte gives the option of
threading on subject.
Your point about using something other than the colon following the OT
is well taken, but the reason why it misbehaves is, I believe,
somewhat different from your explanation.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"I'm not exactly burned out, but I'm a little bit scorched and there's some smoke damage."
Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:58:41 -0400, Maxwell Lol <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> They were already convicted, and reached a settlement with the DoJ.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
> "Convicted"? That was a civil action you cited.
I didn't read his cite, but "convicted means proven guilty. Microsoft
was already proven guilty of illegal monopoly in a court of law.
I reckon it was the Sherman anti-trust laws he has been breaking for
years now, but no matter, we have all seen the results of what can
happen when a ruthless twit owns a monopoly and uses it to force crapola
on the general public.
con·vict Audio Help (k?n-vi(kt') Pronunciation Key
v. con·vict·ed, con·vict·ing, con·victs
v. tr.
1. Law: To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime,
especially by the verdict of a court:
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:58:41 -0400, Maxwell Lol <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>They were already convicted, and reached a settlement with the DoJ.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
"Convicted"? That was a civil action you cited.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
"ROY!" wrote in message
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:47:04 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:
>
> >With the advent of the civilized, considerate, practice of marking "off
> >topic" messages "OT" hereabouts (apparently an excellent practice, in
most
> >of our opinions), many have noted that replies to the original messages
in a
> >"Thread" so marked do not retain the all important "OT" designation.
>
> >Strictly FWIW ... YMMV
>
> Anyone filtering OT would not see your OT MESSAGE HEADERS post.
Neither will most of the pygmies in central Africa .... and your point?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> The US government has already won an anti-trust suit against
> Microsoft for this. The European Union is currently proceeding
> with an anti-trust action against microsoft.
>
> The findings of fact, that Microsoft is a monopoly and abused
> its monopoly position have been upheld.
>
> So yes, the proper authorities have been informed and are
> working the problem.
They had the problem about solved when the administrative law judge
advised the DOJ (under Clinton) that MicroSofts monopoly was far worse
than the retributions sought by the DOJ. The DOJ then appealed their
victory, saying the judge had no right to do this. It is the only time
I have heard someone appealing a law suit after getting MORE than they
asked for, appealing the decision and asking for less than they were
awarded. Something this lame had to cost Gates a bundle. He of course
has a bundle that he has stolen via his illegal monopoly.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:24:08 -0700, "charlie"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
><Tom Veatch> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> ..
>> I'm fairly sure the "2038 Bug" is not going to present _me_ much of a
>> problem ...
>
>you sure? certain financial places have been running into this problem.
>seems that a 30 year mortgage obtained this year runs out in 2038....
>
Emphasis on the "me". Since 2038 will be the 95th anniversary of my
birth and I don't recall any of my relatives ever hitting the 90 mark,
I doubt I'll be around to be affected by it.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
"Jack Stein" wrote
> Anyway, I reckon colons are OK in the subject line, and any newsreader
> that handles them as some sort of special character instead of simple
> text is wrong?
"Reckon" what you will ... the fact remains that "OT:" is indeed removed by
some mail/news clients from threaded replies. This fact is amply documented
in countless threads hereabouts that are marked thusly, occasionally
complained about or blamed on the poster of subsequent replies, AND, more to
the point:
... a SOLUTION was provided!
As far as the rest of your post, give it up ... this is the 21st century and
OS/2 is no longer in the running. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
In article <[email protected]>, ROY! <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:47:04 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>With the advent of the civilized, considerate, practice of marking "off
>>topic" messages "OT" hereabouts (apparently an excellent practice, in most
>>of our opinions), many have noted that replies to the original messages in a
>>"Thread" so marked do not retain the all important "OT" designation.
>
>>Strictly FWIW ... YMMV
>
>Anyone filtering OT would not see your OT MESSAGE HEADERS post.
Depends on how they filter, doesn't it? A filter that's looking for "OT" at
the *beginning* of the subject line would not trap that post.
On Aug 8, 10:18=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jackhttp://jbstein.com
Nice collection of woodworking related links. Thanks for that.
r----> who thinks hitting the start button to shut down the puter is
kinda cute.
Tom Watson wrote:
> IMHO the single best thing that Gates & Co. did was make everyone
> speak the same language.
No, that's not what he did. He did make most people, particularly the
most vulnerable people use the worlds worst OS to run their programs on
(horrible memory protection) and store their files on (horrible file
systems) His operating shell (windows) is a horrible interface that is
hard to work with, hard to analyze, and simply sucks.
> Anyone who remembers trying to pass business files back and forth
> before de facto standardization by msft doesn't miss those days even a
> little bit.
> Please email me if you disagree and I will get back to you with an
> attachment - written in WordStar 1.
I disagree completely. The only compatible files amongst applications
are text files. If you think MS Word files are compatible, or Excel
files are compatible with other applications you would be wrong. If you
think things are great because EVERYONE is pretty much stuck using Word,
then you probably think the world would have been better off if Hitler
won the war and we were are forced to drive Volkswagens.
A good example of compatibility is what this very thread is about.
Usenet, email, HTML is all open source where anyone can write an
application such as Thunderbird, Firefox, OE, IE. When they write the
apps, they are expected to meet the protocols so everything works.
Gates has always SCREWED up his code to NOT conform to the standards
hoping to force everyone to use his crap, just like everyone is forced
to use his OS's.
Yes, Gates has gone a long way to make EVERYTHING incompatible and
forcing everyone to speak HIS language. This is BAD in itself, but
whats even more grating is his language sucks and barely works.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
Tom Veatch writes:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:07:43 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm basically forced to use it because of his illegal
>>monopoly of the operating system market.
>
> Have you notified the proper authorities about this illegal monopoly?
They were already convicted, and reached a settlement with the DoJ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
"Tom Watson" wrote
> You know what I like best about these. 'how many angels can fit on the
> head of a pin', posts?
>
> It means that we are not being bothered by anything that is really
> important.
>
> That makes me happy.
Sorry 'bout the colateral splatter, Bubba ... but you, of all people, should
be well aware that you can't do a 'public service' hereabouts without a
little pissing contest. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Robatoy" wrote
> So it won't fit in a standard card reader? So the 'system' HAS to buy
> the Siemens Hospital Installation Lobby's (aka SHIT) 'special' medical
> card reader for....ermmmmm $11,786.00?.... plus their software and
> proprietary cabling.
> Now as that cynical or skeptical?... I'm going with cynical.
LMAO ... I'm damn proud of my cynicism ... took beaucoup years of BS
detection to gain the exalted status of cynical old fart.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Jack Stein wrote:
> What I'm saying is that with Bill Gates illegally monopolizing the PC
> operating system scene for the past 30 years, instead of healthy
> competition where the best products are used, the consumer has been
> stuck in using the worlds worst operating system, and have been stuck
> there for around 30 years. Vista seems to be no different, or
> possibly the worse of the bunch from what I've been hearing.
My first XT(Amstrad) computer came with Digital Research's ver. of DOS and
GEM (a early graphical interface)....it became a far more useful machine
with Microsoft's DOS and WORKS ....easily doing payroll, billing and
contracts for my business......Gates held no gun to my or anyone's
head....the market place clearly chose his products. His competitors for
many years were all well larger, better placed and better
funded.....including IBM (world largest computer company then).......To
think his then little company conquered all by nefarious means is simple
ignorance. Incidentally his insistence to own and sell DOS and license it to
IBM instead of selling it to IBM is why we have and had a very competitive
PC business. Rod
J. Clarke wrote:
I hope you realize how boring all this is?
> Either way, if IBM had ended up with the code the only real long term
> difference in the computer market would be that everybody hated Gary
> Kildall instead of Bill Gates, because it was intended to be a CP/M
> machine from the outset and the only reason it wasn't was that Digital
> Research (which, for those who think I'm talking about the outfit that
> made VAXen, was a different company from Digital Equipment) didn't get
> their OS on the machine as the default was that somehow they managed
> to tick off IBM enough for IBM to seek a second source (there are many
> stories concerning what specific action set them off).
Yeah, there are a lot of stories because IBM will never tell the truth.
Here are the facts:
IBM had already been busted for running a monopoly and didn't want it to
happen again.
IBM was in competition with Digital Research
IBM's chairman was tight with Gates mother
Gates, a pimply faced millionaires son had no operating system to sell,
but apparently had very good connections.
The rest is history, you can fill in the blanks as to why the world
suffers the worlds worst OS.
> There wasn't any hardware in an IBM PC that needed "cracking". What
> Compaq did was write a clone of the ROM-BIOS program that did not
> infringe IBM's copyright.
That was probably a mistake on IBM's part. No matter, they have patents
on just about everything computer related.
> If IBM had really wanted to keep the PC proprietary they would have
> used their own OS and processor (they had a single-chip 370 running in
> the laboratory, and they had their own 32-bit multiuser multitasking
> virtual-memory protected mode operating system in commercial
> production long before the first IBM PC shipped) instead of farming it
> out to some hole in the wall.
This is exactly right. I think they did it for fear of more charges of
monopoly which can be scary to a corporation. It's worked out well for
all, except the consumer, who generally gets screwed in these
situations, but imo, this is classic how people get fucked from a
monopoly situation.
BTW, when MicroSoft couldn't figure out how to get windows to work after
years of fooling around, IBM wrote OS/2 in less than a year, and it not
only worked, it ran DOS and Windows and OS/2 operating systems and
applications seamlessly and concurrently.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
"Mark & Juanita" wrote
> Interesting. Does that mean that OE also filters out "Re:", or did the
> genii at Msoft hardcode that one out?
No, "re: " is required in the Subject header under certain circumstances.
(Note that the expression is precisely 4 characters, with the space)
See RFC 1036 Sec 2.1.4 and Sec 2.2.5 ... the latter will explain how/when
"Re: " is used.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your position,
> even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.
>
As a dumbass woodworker, who enjoys a good off topic discussion from time to
time, finds your scathing, arrogant manner totally uncomfortable.
As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't know any better you know, the only way
I can escape your relentless vitriol, is to killfile you.
As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't see any alternative.
<Plonk>
Lee
A Dumbass Woodworker
Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:07:43 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm basically forced to use it because of his illegal
>> monopoly of the operating system market.
>
> Have you notified the proper authorities about this illegal monopoly?
They were notified, the DOJ took MS to court, they were found guilty,
the judge told the DOJ they were not asking enough and to re-submit with
more appropriate remedy, and the DOJ appealed their victory.
How much do you think it cost Gates to get the DOJ to appeal their victory?
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
On Aug 13, 1:44 pm, "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your position,
> > even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.
>
> As a dumbass woodworker, who enjoys a good off topic discussion from time
> to
> time, finds your scathing, arrogant manner totally uncomfortable.
>
> As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't know any better you know, the only
> way
> I can escape your relentless vitriol, is to killfile you.
>
> As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't see any alternative.
>
> <Plonk>
>
> Lee
> A Dumbass Woodworker
Ohhh, I don't know, Lee. There are dumb ass woodworkers and guys like
you and I and many others who aren't dumb ass woodworkers. Jack Stein
put himself in the dumb-ass category, I don't think he put anybody
else in there with him. He could be there all by himself...but that's
unlikely.
And I don't see you as dumb ass.
------------------------------
Uhhh..., Robatoy...., adjust your sarcasm meter.
"Tim Douglass" wrote
> Your point about using something other than the colon following the OT
> is well taken, but the reason why it misbehaves is, I believe,
> somewhat different from your explanation.
Jeeezus fucking chriiiist!
Do you really think that this was intended to be a complete treatise on text
based transport control protocols?
Didja just happen to notice the ".. and others" with regard to the RFC's?
Or are you just ignoring the obvious so that you can show your ass and
belittle the point?
It's no damn wonder most of the informative posters of the past have gone
elsewhere ... there is always some pedantic, smartass caviler waiting to
quibble over every little bit of esoteric bullshit they can think to bring
up.
You, yourself said the "point was well taken" ... either leave it at that,
or go fuck yourself.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> My money is on Thunderbird vs OE with re: to following protocol but I'm
>> always looking for MS getting something right...
mac davis wrote:
> Micro$oft has done many things both right and wrong, sometimes at the same time
> and in the same application, IMHO..
I don't personally think MicroSoft has done much of anything right.
> What they almost always do well is marketing..
Marketing ain't hard when you have a giant monopoly on your hands,
brought about by underhanded and illegal marketing techniques.
> Just use ME operating system as an example of how you can sell shit in a bag, if
> you market it enough..
Or if you dominate the market through illegal marketing techniques
rather than with a superior product.
> How many of us, beginning with Dos, have been unpaid beta testers for M$?
> Can we get a show of hands? lol
I've run most MS OS's since DOS 2.0 and none of them were any good.
File systems suck, memory protection sucks, the whole package sucked and
30 or so years later is not too much better. Gates has single handedly
set computing back at least 30 years so far, and probably 100 years or
more when it's all said and done.
Anyway, I reckon colons are OK in the subject line, and any newsreader
that handles them as some sort of special character instead of simple
text is wrong?
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
"charlie" wrote
> you sure? certain financial places have been running into this problem.
> seems that a 30 year mortgage obtained this year runs out in 2038....
Some 30 year financial instruments should have already been effected on
Saturday, 19 Janurary, 2008.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Tom Veatch writes:
>On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:07:43 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> I'm basically forced to use it because of his illegal
>>monopoly of the operating system market.
>
>Have you notified the proper authorities about this illegal monopoly?
>
The US government has already won an anti-trust suit against
Microsoft for this. The European Union is currently proceeding
with an anti-trust action against microsoft.
The findings of fact, that Microsoft is a monopoly and abused
its monopoly position have been upheld.
So yes, the proper authorities have been informed and are
working the problem.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case>
scott
David G. Nagel wrote:
> It should also be pointed out that IBM, when they came up with their
> computer, sought out Bill and his buddy and asked them to create the OS
> for their radical new computer. Bill originally wanted to sell the OS to
> IBM but IBM didn't want to have to support the code. The rest as they
> say is history.
IBM sought out Gates, who at the time did not have an OS at all. Why
would they do this I wonder? They could have gone straight to Patterson
who developed the OS instead of Gates, who had to go Patterson to buy it
off of him. Gates had no clue how it even worked...
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
> "Swingman" wrote:
>> In most cases this is actually the result of the OP using a reserved
>> "control character" to delineate the "OT", such as the colon in "OT:".
>>
>> In an attempt to conform to RFC Internet protocols, many mail/news clients
>> strip out what are considered "encoded words" and/or other characters that
>> precede, without a space, these control characters that are used to
>> terminate/modify message header information.
>>
>> (See RFC #822, and others, for more information on the structure of header
>> fields)
>> Some newsreaders follow protocol, some do not, (recent versions of OE do
>> this routinely, while most versions of Forte Agent do not),
I use Thunderbird and it doesn't mess with OT: in the subject line or in
the body of a message. Historically, Netscape/Thunderbird have followed
protocol more so than Microsoft, so when someone says MicroSoft does
something right, it grabs my attention.
Tim Douglass wrote:
> Curiously enough, RFC 822 does not address the issue of the embedded
> colon in the subject line at all. In fact it specifically defines the
> subject as an unparsed text string.
> When properly implemented
> you can use "OT:" and follow-ups will come out as "OT:". If poorly
> implemented you get "re: OT:". I haven't the time to try to search out
> what is really the desired behavior, but clearly one that allows for
> tagging posts as "OT:" is better behaved than one that forces you to
> use "OT - " or some such, producing "re: OT - " in the follow-ups.
> Granted, a properly threading newsreader will not be fooled, but I
> don't think that OE threads properly anyway. Forte gives the option of
> threading on subject.
Now this makes sense, in that Thunderbird has it right, and OE has it
wrong.
> Your point about using something other than the colon following the OT
> is well taken, but the reason why it misbehaves is, I believe,
> somewhat different from your explanation.
Well, since the subject: came up, and my curiosity was aroused when MS
was accused of doing something right, I went and looked through RFC 822
and it seemed clear the subject is a text field and colons are fine.
Now, since you "think the point is well taken" re: colons, and the
Swingman thinks MS is following protocol by striping out OT with colons,
my curiosity is not quenched just yet. Should colons be a control
character in the text field or not and where can I find the truth?
My money is on Thunderbird vs OE with re: to following protocol but I'm
always looking for MS getting something right...
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
On Aug 4, 1:23 pm, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:10:32 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >My money is on Thunderbird vs OE with re: to following protocol but I'm
> >always looking for MS getting something right...
>
> >--
> >Jack
> >http://jbstein.com
>
> Micro$oft has done many things both right and wrong, sometimes at the same time
> and in the same application, IMHO..
>
> What they almost always do well is marketing..
> Just use ME operating system as an example of how you can sell shit in a bag, if
> you market it enough..
>
> How many of us, beginning with Dos, have been unpaid beta testers for M$?
> Can we get a show of hands? lol
>
> mac
>
> Please remove splinters before emailing
Unfortunately, you can say that about almost all software producers,
and about many hardware producers, too. The computer industry as a
whole has gotten away with more screwing of buyers than any five other
industries combined, except, maybe, car makers who have had about a
half century more experience in screwing the consumer without Vaseline.
On Aug 13, 7:45=A0pm, "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
> On Aug 13, 1:44 pm, "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > > Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your position=
,
> > > even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.
>
> > As a dumbass woodworker, who enjoys a good off topic discussion from ti=
me
> > to
> > time, finds your scathing, arrogant manner totally uncomfortable.
>
> > As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't know any better you know, the onl=
y
> > way
> > I can escape your relentless vitriol, is to killfile you.
>
> > As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't see any alternative.
>
> > <Plonk>
>
> > Lee
> > A Dumbass Woodworker
>
> Ohhh, I don't know, Lee. There are dumb ass woodworkers and guys like
> you and I and many others who aren't dumb ass woodworkers. Jack Stein
> put himself in the dumb-ass category, I don't think he put anybody
> else in there with him. He could be there all by himself...but that's
> unlikely.
> And I don't see you as dumb ass.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Uhhh..., =A0Robatoy...., =A0adjust your sarcasm meter.
***>>BUZZER<<*** Wrong! I meant what I said.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
On Aug 13, 7:56 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 7:45 pm, "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
> > On Aug 13, 1:44 pm, "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > > > Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your
> > > > position,
> > > > even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.
>
> > > As a dumbass woodworker, who enjoys a good off topic discussion from
> > > time
> > > to
> > > time, finds your scathing, arrogant manner totally uncomfortable.
>
> > > As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't know any better you know, the
> > > only
> > > way
> > > I can escape your relentless vitriol, is to killfile you.
>
> > > As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't see any alternative.
>
> > > <Plonk>
>
> > > Lee
> > > A Dumbass Woodworker
>
> > Ohhh, I don't know, Lee. There are dumb ass woodworkers and guys like
> > you and I and many others who aren't dumb ass woodworkers. Jack Stein
> > put himself in the dumb-ass category, I don't think he put anybody
> > else in there with him. He could be there all by himself...but that's
> > unlikely.
> > And I don't see you as dumb ass.
>
> > ------------------------------
>
> > Uhhh..., Robatoy...., adjust your sarcasm meter.
>
> ***>>BUZZER<<*** Wrong! I meant what I said.
Ohhhhh waitasec *brainfart* You meant YOU were being sarcastic?
------------------------
Yep, this whole thing about being a dumbass. Dumbasses rarely recognize it.
I wuz pretending to be a dumbass while doing a very intelligent thing. I was
cutting myself off from someone who preaches incredibly boring, revisionist
history.
Besides, shrill voices give me tinnitus.
I was also letting him know that even the folks he supposedly identifies
with don't like having their newsgroup hijacked for a very angry, personal
agenda. Even dumbasses don't appreciate the screaming diatribes.
Comprende'??
On Aug 13, 7:56=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 7:45=A0pm, "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
> > On Aug 13, 1:44 pm, "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > > > Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your positi=
on,
> > > > even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.
>
> > > As a dumbass woodworker, who enjoys a good off topic discussion from =
time
> > > to
> > > time, finds your scathing, arrogant manner totally uncomfortable.
>
> > > As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't know any better you know, the o=
nly
> > > way
> > > I can escape your relentless vitriol, is to killfile you.
>
> > > As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't see any alternative.
>
> > > <Plonk>
>
> > > Lee
> > > A Dumbass Woodworker
>
> > Ohhh, I don't know, Lee. There are dumb ass woodworkers and guys like
> > you and I and many others who aren't dumb ass woodworkers. Jack Stein
> > put himself in the dumb-ass category, I don't think he put anybody
> > else in there with him. He could be there all by himself...but that's
> > unlikely.
> > And I don't see you as dumb ass.
>
> > ------------------------------
>
> > Uhhh..., =A0Robatoy...., =A0adjust your sarcasm meter.
>
> ***>>BUZZER<<*** Wrong! I meant what I said.
Ohhhhh waitasec *brainfart* You meant YOU were being sarcastic?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:17:42 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"ROY!" wrote in message
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:47:04 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:
>>
>> >With the advent of the civilized, considerate, practice of marking "off
>> >topic" messages "OT" hereabouts (apparently an excellent practice, in
>most
>> >of our opinions), many have noted that replies to the original messages
>in a
>> >"Thread" so marked do not retain the all important "OT" designation.
>>
>> >Strictly FWIW ... YMMV
>>
>> Anyone filtering OT would not see your OT MESSAGE HEADERS post.
>
>Neither will most of the pygmies in central Africa .... and your point?
Especially if they filter OT in the subject line.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Boring. One of these days one of you OS advocates will actually get a
> fact right and I'll die of shock.
Highly unlikely in this case. His delusional paranoia about Microsoft and
Bill Gates has severely warped any possible semblance of reality.
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> What I'm saying is that with Bill Gates illegally monopolizing the PC
>> operating system scene for the past 30 years, instead of healthy
>> competition where the best products are used, the consumer has been
>> stuck in using the worlds worst operating system, and have been stuck
>> there for around 30 years. Vista seems to be no different, or
>> possibly the worse of the bunch from what I've been hearing.
>
>
> My first XT(Amstrad) computer came with Digital Research's ver. of DOS and
> GEM (a early graphical interface)....it became a far more useful machine
> with Microsoft's DOS and WORKS ....easily doing payroll, billing and
> contracts for my business......Gates held no gun to my or anyone's
> head....the market place clearly chose his products. His competitors for
> many years were all well larger, better placed and better
> funded.....including IBM (world largest computer company then).......To
> think his then little company conquered all by nefarious means is simple
> ignorance. Incidentally his insistence to own and sell DOS and license it to
> IBM instead of selling it to IBM is why we have and had a very competitive
> PC business. Rod
>
>
Rod;
It should also be pointed out that IBM, when they came up with their
computer, sought out Bill and his buddy and asked them to create the OS
for their radical new computer. Bill originally wanted to sell the OS to
IBM but IBM didn't want to have to support the code. The rest as they
say is history.
Dave N
<Tom Veatch> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:08:44 GMT, FrozenNorth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
>>
>>Nothing much ever changes.
>
> "Most operating systems for 64-bit architectures already use 64-bit
> integers in their time_t. The move to these architectures is already
> under way and many expect it to be complete before 2038. Using a
> (signed) 64-bit value introduces a new wraparound date in about 290
> billion years, on Sunday, December 4, 292,277,026,596. This problem,
> however, is not widely regarded as a pressing issue."
>
> That last sentence was written by a master of understatement.
>
> I'm fairly sure the "2038 Bug" is not going to present me much of a
> problem and I know darned well I'm not going to worry about the one in
> 292277026596 c.e. (Would have been a bit ironic if that date had been
> Dec. 7, instead of Dec 4.)
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS
> USA
you sure? certain financial places have been running into this problem.
seems that a 30 year mortgage obtained this year runs out in 2038....
Jack Stein wrote:
> Tom Watson wrote:
>
>> IMHO the single best thing that Gates & Co. did was make everyone
>> speak the same language.
>
> No, that's not what he did. He did make most people, particularly
> the
> most vulnerable people use the worlds worst OS to run their programs
> on (horrible memory protection) and store their files on (horrible
> file systems) His operating shell (windows) is a horrible interface
> that is hard to work with, hard to analyze, and simply sucks.
>
>> Anyone who remembers trying to pass business files back and forth
>> before de facto standardization by msft doesn't miss those days
>> even
>> a little bit.
>
>> Please email me if you disagree and I will get back to you with an
>> attachment - written in WordStar 1.
>
> I disagree completely. The only compatible files amongst
> applications
> are text files. If you think MS Word files are compatible, or Excel
> files are compatible with other applications you would be wrong. If
> you think things are great because EVERYONE is pretty much stuck
> using Word, then you probably think the world would have been better
> off if Hitler won the war and we were are forced to drive
> Volkswagens.
>
> A good example of compatibility is what this very thread is about.
> Usenet, email, HTML is all open source where anyone can write an
> application such as Thunderbird, Firefox, OE, IE. When they write
> the
> apps, they are expected to meet the protocols so everything works.
> Gates has always SCREWED up his code to NOT conform to the standards
> hoping to force everyone to use his crap, just like everyone is
> forced
> to use his OS's.
>
> Yes, Gates has gone a long way to make EVERYTHING incompatible and
> forcing everyone to speak HIS language. This is BAD in itself, but
> whats even more grating is his language sucks and barely works.
I do hope you realize how _boring_ this crap gets the 47,000th time
you've heard it.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> It should also be pointed out that IBM, when they came up with
>> their
>> computer, sought out Bill and his buddy and asked them to create
>> the
>> OS for their radical new computer. Bill originally wanted to sell
>> the OS to IBM but IBM didn't want to have to support the code. The
>> rest as they say is history.
>> Dave N
>
>
> You've got it backwards.....IBM wanted to buy the code.........Gates
> insisted on the license and the ability to sell to third party PC
> manufacturers (he declined a multi-million dollar offer from IBM).
Either way, if IBM had ended up with the code the only real long term
difference in the computer market would be that everybody hated Gary
Kildall instead of Bill Gates, because it was intended to be a CP/M
machine from the outset and the only reason it wasn't was that Digital
Research (which, for those who think I'm talking about the outfit that
made VAXen, was a different company from Digital Equipment) didn't get
their OS on the machine as the default was that somehow they managed
to tick off IBM enough for IBM to seek a second source (there are many
stories concerning what specific action set them off).
> IBM as well tried to keep the PC market propriety but between Intel
> owning the chip, Microsoft owning the OS and third parties (Compaq I
> think) cracking the hardware they could not.
There wasn't any hardware in an IBM PC that needed "cracking". What
Compaq did was write a clone of the ROM-BIOS program that did not
infringe IBM's copyright.
If IBM had really wanted to keep the PC proprietary they would have
used their own OS and processor (they had a single-chip 370 running in
the laboratory, and they had their own 32-bit multiuser multitasking
virtual-memory protected mode operating system in commercial
production long before the first IBM PC shipped) instead of farming it
out to some hole in the wall.
They saw what was happening in the microcomputer market and the PC was
an attempt to cash in on it on the cheap--the prototype PC was pretty
much built from the parts bin for the System 25, which had been a big
flop.
> For DOS both IBM and
> Microsoft had separate support /development teams (Microsoft's much
> smaller, leaner and more effective). PC DOS was supported by IBM and
> MSDOS was supported by Microsoft.
Which was more effective is debatable. Once they split the code base,
PC DOS was generally tighter code.
> Various DOS version releases flip
> flopped between the teams. IBM fully expected OS/2 to render DOS
> obsolete long before its ultimate demise. Microsoft's Window
> development was a bit of a sleeper with ver 3 setting the stage for
> a
> WIN95 knockout.......Rod
Well, actually it was NT that set the stage for the WIN95
knockout--the only reason Windows 95 ever existed was to induce
developers to start writing code for WIN32.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Jack Stein wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>
>> You've got it backwards.....IBM wanted to buy the
>> code.........Gates
>> insisted on the license and the ability to sell to third party PC
>> manufacturers (he declined a multi-million dollar offer from IBM).
>> IBM as well tried to keep the PC market propriety but between Intel
>> owning the chip, Microsoft owning the OS and third parties (Compaq
>> I
>> think) cracking the hardware they could not. For DOS both IBM and
>> Microsoft had separate support /development teams (Microsoft's much
>> smaller, leaner and more effective).
>
> It's a cartel. Intel owns the chips, MS owns the OS, and IBM owns
> the
> hardware and service end. Every time everyone has enough hardware
> and
> chip power to run his screwed up OS, MS comes out with a bigger,
> more
> bloated, slower system. He provides no backwards support and INTEL
> sells more chips, IBM gets more royalties and sells more service as
> nothing Gates has done has ever worked quite right. It's the same
> old
> shit over and over. Probably why J. Clark is tired of hearing it.
>
>> PC DOS was supported by IBM and MSDOS was supported by
>> Microsoft. Various DOS version releases flip flopped between the
>> teams. IBM fully expected OS/2 to render DOS obsolete long before
>> its ultimate demise. Microsoft's Window development was a bit of a
>> sleeper with ver 3 setting the stage for a WIN95 knockout.......Rod
>
> Win95 was no knockout. It damn near killed Windows. IBM never
> wanted
> anything to do with owning the OS that dominated everyones computers
> so when OS2 was about to kill Windows dead as a doornail, IBM pulled
> the plug when OS2 was reaching critical mass (million copies a month
> being sold.)
>
> OS2 was the only version of windows that actually worked. It was
> bullet proof with a windows interface. Not as strong as UNIX but it
> had the file system and memory protection required for an OS to work
> without constant problems. IBM killed it because it didn't fit in
> with the windows garbage plan that has kept the cartel very rich and
> famous.
Boring. One of these days one of you OS advocates will actually get a
fact right and I'll die of shock.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:26:45 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Gates has single handedly
>set computing back at least 30 years so far
So, what you're saying is that if Bill Gates had never existed, the
state of computing today, would be the same as what it will be ca.
2038?
Not sure I buy that.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
> My first XT(Amstrad) computer came with Digital Research's ver. of DOS and
> GEM (a early graphical interface)....it became a far more useful machine
> with Microsoft's DOS and WORKS ....easily doing payroll, billing and
> contracts for my business......Gates held no gun to my or anyone's
> head....the market place clearly chose his products.
Nope, IBM chose his product. Actually, he didn't even have a product
when IBM chose his "product".
His competitors for
> many years were all well larger, better placed and better
> funded.....including IBM (world largest computer company then).......
IBM was not his competitor, IBM was his savior.
To
> think his then little company conquered all by nefarious means is simple
> ignorance.
Unless you are aware that his millionaire parents, particularly his mom,
was tight with the chairman of IBM when they made the unbelievable
decision to give him the contract for an operating system he didn't even
have until after they gave him the contract.
Incidentally his insistence to own and sell DOS and license it to
> IBM instead of selling it to IBM is why we have and had a very competitive
> PC business. Rod
Well, we are talking Operating Systems not PC business.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:46:10 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"ROY!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:17:42 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"ROY!" wrote in message
>> >> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:47:04 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >With the advent of the civilized, considerate, practice of marking
>"off
>> >> >topic" messages "OT" hereabouts (apparently an excellent practice, in
>> >most
>> >> >of our opinions), many have noted that replies to the original
>messages
>> >in a
>> >> >"Thread" so marked do not retain the all important "OT" designation.
>> >>
>> >> >Strictly FWIW ... YMMV
>> >>
>> >> Anyone filtering OT would not see your OT MESSAGE HEADERS post.
>> >
>> >Neither will most of the pygmies in central Africa .... and your point?
>>
>> Especially if they filter OT in the subject line.
>
>Help me out with what I'm missing here ... if "they" are indeed filtering OT
>in the subject header in the first place, why would "they" give a shit/be
>upset if "they" missed this particular thread?
>
>Ever hear of a "moot point" (US idiom, not UK)? ;)
You know what I like best about these. 'how many angels can fit on the
head of a pin', posts?
It means that we are not being bothered by anything that is really
important.
That makes me happy.
Regards, Tom.
Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:46:34 GMT, FrozenNorth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>...
>Just curious, did you pull 2038 out of your ass, just add 30 years, or were
>you aware of the potential problem?
>
>Seriously.
>;-)
My first post in this thread was in response to an assertion that Bill
Gates has set computing back 30 years. That's where the 30 came from.
At the time, I had no inkling of the looming "Unix Millennium bug".
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
Upscale wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> What I'm saying is that with Bill Gates illegally monopolizing the PC
>> operating system scene for the past 30 years, instead of healthy
>
> Funny how you have no compunctions about criticising Gates and his
> contribution to the computer world, yet your headers show that you feel
> quite comfortable using Windows software.
I'm not even slightly "comfortable" using windows software, it sucks. I
can use it, I'm basically forced to use it because of his illegal
monopoly of the operating system market.
Can you spell hyocrite? Have you
> ever *heard* the word before?
Can you spell monopoly, have you ever heard the word before?
>> there for around 30 years. Vista seems to be no different, or possibly
>> the worse of the bunch from what I've been hearing.
>
> MS-DOS didn't exist 30 years in 1978 and the first independent version of
> windows was about 1985. So that blows your 30 year time frame out of the
> water.
Your are dummer than dirt.
> Quite obviously, you believe most of what you hear and direct your
> life on hearsay and innuendo without taking one moment to back up or confirm
> anything that you've heard.
Like a fool, you know zip and talk out of your ass. I've been running
MS crap since DOS 2.1 and I know it sucks first hand. I know it sucks
because I use it and have been intimately familiar with Windows, Unix,
and yes, OS2.
Just as obviously, you haven't even seen Vista
> in operation much less actually used it.
The reason it's obvious is I just said it?
> Very simply, you're just another flake running with the mob.
Well, the "mob" is running Gate's Garbage. Most of them have no choice,
never had a choice, and probably never will have a choice.
> Well, chicken little, I'm here to tell you that the sky is indeed falling and that you
> should take immediate shelter because you're about to get rained on big
> time.
Well lemming, the sky already fell, you already have been rained on, and
you're too dumb to know it. Sorry about that.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
J. Clarke wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> Tom Watson wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO the single best thing that Gates & Co. did was make everyone
>>> speak the same language.
>> No, that's not what he did. He did make most people, particularly
>> the
>> most vulnerable people use the worlds worst OS to run their programs
>> on (horrible memory protection) and store their files on (horrible
>> file systems) His operating shell (windows) is a horrible interface
>> that is hard to work with, hard to analyze, and simply sucks.
>>
>>> Anyone who remembers trying to pass business files back and forth
>>> before de facto standardization by msft doesn't miss those days
>>> even
>>> a little bit.
>>> Please email me if you disagree and I will get back to you with an
>>> attachment - written in WordStar 1.
>> I disagree completely. The only compatible files amongst
>> applications
>> are text files. If you think MS Word files are compatible, or Excel
>> files are compatible with other applications you would be wrong. If
>> you think things are great because EVERYONE is pretty much stuck
>> using Word, then you probably think the world would have been better
>> off if Hitler won the war and we were are forced to drive
>> Volkswagens.
>>
>> A good example of compatibility is what this very thread is about.
>> Usenet, email, HTML is all open source where anyone can write an
>> application such as Thunderbird, Firefox, OE, IE. When they write
>> the
>> apps, they are expected to meet the protocols so everything works.
>> Gates has always SCREWED up his code to NOT conform to the standards
>> hoping to force everyone to use his crap, just like everyone is
>> forced
>> to use his OS's.
>>
>> Yes, Gates has gone a long way to make EVERYTHING incompatible and
>> forcing everyone to speak HIS language. This is BAD in itself, but
>> whats even more grating is his language sucks and barely works.
>
> I do hope you realize how _boring_ this crap gets the 47,000th time
> you've heard it.
I do hope you realize that you just re-posted my entire message just to
say it is boring...
Don't you have a clue how to edit a message so it isn't full of
repeating boredom?
How's that?
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
"mac davis" wrote
> How many of us, beginning with Dos, have been unpaid beta testers for M$?
> Can we get a show of hands? lol
I once liked _most_ of what MSFT did, and still think that, in general, the
ultimate impact they have had on "personal computing" since the DOS days is
more on the plus side than the negative ... but not necessarily the way they
_did_ it.
That said, MSFT, like most corporations these days, appears to be currently
full of blithering idiots, .
On that same note (corporate/government ineptness) can someone who has
qualified for Medicare longer than I tell why the hell a Medicare Card is
just that much bigger than a credit card so that it can not possibly fit in
a wallet?
Just wondering ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"ROY!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:17:42 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"ROY!" wrote in message
> >> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:47:04 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:
> >>
> >> >With the advent of the civilized, considerate, practice of marking
"off
> >> >topic" messages "OT" hereabouts (apparently an excellent practice, in
> >most
> >> >of our opinions), many have noted that replies to the original
messages
> >in a
> >> >"Thread" so marked do not retain the all important "OT" designation.
> >>
> >> >Strictly FWIW ... YMMV
> >>
> >> Anyone filtering OT would not see your OT MESSAGE HEADERS post.
> >
> >Neither will most of the pygmies in central Africa .... and your point?
>
> Especially if they filter OT in the subject line.
Help me out with what I'm missing here ... if "they" are indeed filtering OT
in the subject header in the first place, why would "they" give a shit/be
upset if "they" missed this particular thread?
Ever hear of a "moot point" (US idiom, not UK)? ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:47:04 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>With the advent of the civilized, considerate, practice of marking "off
>>topic" messages "OT" hereabouts (apparently an excellent practice, in most
>>of our opinions), many have noted that replies to the original messages in
>>a "Thread" so marked do not retain the all important "OT" designation.
>>
>>In most cases this is actually the result of the OP using a reserved
>>"control character" to delineate the "OT", such as the colon in "OT:".
>>
>>In an attempt to conform to RFC Internet protocols, many mail/news clients
>>strip out what are considered "encoded words" and/or other characters that
>>precede, without a space, these control characters that are used to
>>terminate/modify message header information.
>>
>>(See RFC #822, and others, for more information on the structure of header
>>fields)
>>
>>Some newsreaders follow protocol, some do not, (recent versions of OE do
>>this routinely, while most versions of Forte Agent do not), so to insure
>>your original message contains the off topic designation, it is a good
>>practice to NOT use a ":" immediately preceding the "OT:", thusly, in the
>>subject header of your OT marked messages if you wish all threaded replies
>>to remain marked "OT".
>>
Interesting. Does that mean that OE also filters out "Re:", or did the
genii at Msoft hardcode that one out?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Upscale wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Boring. One of these days one of you OS advocates will actually get a
>> fact right and I'll die of shock.
>
> Highly unlikely in this case. His delusional paranoia about Microsoft and
> Bill Gates has severely warped any possible semblance of reality.
Well then, your moronic complacency about Microsofts illegal monopoly
and how it has been mostly detrimental to the computing community at
large is underwhelming and nothing more than a testament to herd mentality.
Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your position,
even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:47:04 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>With the advent of the civilized, considerate, practice of marking "off
>topic" messages "OT" hereabouts (apparently an excellent practice, in most
>of our opinions), many have noted that replies to the original messages in a
>"Thread" so marked do not retain the all important "OT" designation.
>Strictly FWIW ... YMMV
Anyone filtering OT would not see your OT MESSAGE HEADERS post.
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:00:52 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Some 30 year financial instruments should have already been effected on
>Saturday, 19 Janurary, 2008.
That amortization schedule showing the last mortgage payment coming
due 1 March, 1901 must have been quite a shock. Think they'd foreclose
because of a payment 137 years in arrears?
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:47:04 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>...so to insure your original message contains the off topic designation, it
>is a good practice to NOT use a ":" immediately preceding the "OT:",
>thusly, in the subject header of your OT marked messages if you wish
>all threaded replies to remain marked "OT".
Did you mean "immediately *following* the 'OT'?"
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:18:48 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I disagree completely. The only compatible files amongst applications
>are text files. If you think MS Word files are compatible, or Excel
>files are compatible with other applications you would be wrong. If you
>think things are great because EVERYONE is pretty much stuck using Word,
>then you probably think the world would have been better off if Hitler
>won the war and we were are forced to drive Volkswagens.
I invoke Godwin.
Regards, Tom.
Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:07:41 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jeeezus fucking chriiiist!
>
>Do you really think that this was intended to be a complete treatise on text
>based transport control protocols?
>
>Didja just happen to notice the ".. and others" with regard to the RFC's?
>
>Or are you just ignoring the obvious so that you can show your ass and
>belittle the point?
>
>It's no damn wonder most of the informative posters of the past have gone
>elsewhere ... there is always some pedantic, smartass caviler waiting to
>quibble over every little bit of esoteric bullshit they can think to bring
>up.
>
>You, yourself said the "point was well taken" ... either leave it at that,
>or go fuck yourself.
Hey Swing... I think you need to open up a little and tell him what you really
feel.. roflmao
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:07:43 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I'm basically forced to use it because of his illegal
>monopoly of the operating system market.
Have you notified the proper authorities about this illegal monopoly?
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:08:44 GMT, FrozenNorth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
>
>Nothing much ever changes.
"Most operating systems for 64-bit architectures already use 64-bit
integers in their time_t. The move to these architectures is already
under way and many expect it to be complete before 2038. Using a
(signed) 64-bit value introduces a new wraparound date in about 290
billion years, on Sunday, December 4, 292,277,026,596. This problem,
however, is not widely regarded as a pressing issue."
That last sentence was written by a master of understatement.
I'm fairly sure the "2038 Bug" is not going to present me much of a
problem and I know darned well I'm not going to worry about the one in
292277026596 c.e. (Would have been a bit ironic if that date had been
Dec. 7, instead of Dec 4.)
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:26:24 -0400, ROY! <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:47:04 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>With the advent of the civilized, considerate, practice of marking "off
>>topic" messages "OT" hereabouts (apparently an excellent practice, in most
>>of our opinions), many have noted that replies to the original messages in a
>>"Thread" so marked do not retain the all important "OT" designation.
>
>>Strictly FWIW ... YMMV
>
>Anyone filtering OT would not see your OT MESSAGE HEADERS post.
Hell, some of the bests post here are the OT ones, IMO..
Newsgroups, like real life, would be pretty boring if everyone stayed on topic..
Now if the spammers would all be so kind as to start their posts with "spam",
I'd filter those out..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:38:54 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"mac davis" wrote
>
>> How many of us, beginning with Dos, have been unpaid beta testers for M$?
>> Can we get a show of hands? lol
>
>I once liked _most_ of what MSFT did, and still think that, in general, the
>ultimate impact they have had on "personal computing" since the DOS days is
>more on the plus side than the negative ... but not necessarily the way they
>_did_ it.
>
>That said, MSFT, like most corporations these days, appears to be currently
>full of blithering idiots, .
>
<snip>
IMHO the single best thing that Gates & Co. did was make everyone
speak the same language.
Anyone who remembers trying to pass business files back and forth
before de facto standardization by msft doesn't miss those days even a
little bit.
Please email me if you disagree and I will get back to you with an
attachment - written in WordStar 1.
Regards, Tom.
Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> You've got it backwards.....IBM wanted to buy the code.........Gates
> insisted on the license and the ability to sell to third party PC
> manufacturers (he declined a multi-million dollar offer from IBM). IBM as
> well tried to keep the PC market propriety but between Intel owning the
> chip, Microsoft owning the OS and third parties (Compaq I think) cracking
> the hardware they could not. For DOS both IBM and Microsoft had separate
> support /development teams (Microsoft's much smaller, leaner and more
> effective).
It's a cartel. Intel owns the chips, MS owns the OS, and IBM owns the
hardware and service end. Every time everyone has enough hardware and
chip power to run his screwed up OS, MS comes out with a bigger, more
bloated, slower system. He provides no backwards support and INTEL
sells more chips, IBM gets more royalties and sells more service as
nothing Gates has done has ever worked quite right. It's the same old
shit over and over. Probably why J. Clark is tired of hearing it.
> PC DOS was supported by IBM and MSDOS was supported by
> Microsoft. Various DOS version releases flip flopped between the teams. IBM
> fully expected OS/2 to render DOS obsolete long before its ultimate demise.
> Microsoft's Window development was a bit of a sleeper with ver 3 setting the
> stage for a WIN95 knockout.......Rod
Win95 was no knockout. It damn near killed Windows. IBM never wanted
anything to do with owning the OS that dominated everyones computers so
when OS2 was about to kill Windows dead as a doornail, IBM pulled the
plug when OS2 was reaching critical mass (million copies a month being
sold.)
OS2 was the only version of windows that actually worked. It was bullet
proof with a windows interface. Not as strong as UNIX but it had the
file system and memory protection required for an OS to work without
constant problems. IBM killed it because it didn't fit in with the
windows garbage plan that has kept the cartel very rich and famous.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It should also be pointed out that IBM, when they came up with their
> computer, sought out Bill and his buddy and asked them to create the OS
> for their radical new computer. Bill originally wanted to sell the OS to
> IBM but IBM didn't want to have to support the code. The rest as they say
> is history.
> Dave N
You've got it backwards.....IBM wanted to buy the code.........Gates
insisted on the license and the ability to sell to third party PC
manufacturers (he declined a multi-million dollar offer from IBM). IBM as
well tried to keep the PC market propriety but between Intel owning the
chip, Microsoft owning the OS and third parties (Compaq I think) cracking
the hardware they could not. For DOS both IBM and Microsoft had separate
support /development teams (Microsoft's much smaller, leaner and more
effective). PC DOS was supported by IBM and MSDOS was supported by
Microsoft. Various DOS version releases flip flopped between the teams. IBM
fully expected OS/2 to render DOS obsolete long before its ultimate demise.
Microsoft's Window development was a bit of a sleeper with ver 3 setting the
stage for a WIN95 knockout.......Rod
"LRod" wrote in message
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:47:04 -0500, "Swingman" < wrote:
>
> >...so to insure your original message contains the off topic designation,
it
> >is a good practice to NOT use a ":" immediately preceding the "OT:",
> >thusly, in the subject header of your OT marked messages if you wish
> >all threaded replies to remain marked "OT".
>
> Did you mean "immediately *following* the 'OT'?"
Yep ... thanks for catching that!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)