|
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
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) |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
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'?" -- 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. |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"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) |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
In article , ROY! wrote:
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. 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. |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"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) |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"ROY!" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:17:42 -0500, "Swingman" 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 ****/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) |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:46:10 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:
"ROY!" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:17:42 -0500, "Swingman" 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 ****/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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"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 ****ing contest. :) -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:01:24 -0500, "Swingman" 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 ****ing 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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:26:24 -0400, ROY! wrote:
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. 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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
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. 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 "" at the beginning. When properly implemented you can use "OT:" and follow-ups will come out as "OT:". If poorly implemented you get " 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 " 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." |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"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 ****ing 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 bull**** they can think to bring up. You, yourself said the "point was well taken" ... either leave it at that, or go **** yourself. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
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. 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 "", or did the genii at Msoft hardcode that one out? -- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"Mark & Juanita" wrote Interesting. Does that mean that OE also filters out "", or did the genii at Msoft hardcode that one out? No, " " 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 " " is used. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:07:41 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:
Jeeezus ****ing 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 bull**** they can think to bring up. You, yourself said the "point was well taken" ... either leave it at that, or go **** 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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"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 " 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 " 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" 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 to following protocol but I'm always looking for MS getting something right... -- Jack http://jbstein.com |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:10:32 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
My money is on Thunderbird vs OE with to following protocol but I'm always looking for MS getting something right... -- Jack http://jbstein.com Micro$oft has done many things both right and wrong, sometimes at the same time and in the same application, IMHO.. What they almost always do well is marketing.. Just use ME operating system as an example of how you can sell **** in a bag, if you market it enough.. How many of us, beginning with Dos, have been unpaid beta testers for M$? Can we get a show of hands? lol mac Please remove splinters before emailing |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"mac davis" wrote How many of us, beginning with Dos, have been unpaid beta testers for M$? Can we get a show of hands? lol I once liked _most_ of what MSFT did, and still think that, in general, the ultimate impact they have had on "personal computing" since the DOS days is more on the plus side than the negative ... but not necessarily the way they _did_ it. That said, MSFT, like most corporations these days, appears to be currently full of blithering idiots, . On that same note (corporate/government ineptness) can someone who has qualified for Medicare longer than I tell why the hell a Medicare Card is just that much bigger than a credit card so that it can not possibly fit in a wallet? Just wondering ... -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Aug 4, 2:38*pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"mac davis" wrote How many of us, beginning with Dos, have been unpaid beta testers for M$? 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, . 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 ****) '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. |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"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 ****) 'special' medical card reader for....ermmmmm $11,786.00?.... plus their software and proprietary cabling. Now as that cynical or skeptical?... I'm going with cynical. LMAO ... I'm damn proud of my cynicism ... took beaucoup years of BS detection to gain the exalted status of cynical old fart. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"Swingman" wrote LMAO ... I'm damn proud of my cynicism ... took beaucoup years of BS detection to gain the exalted status of cynical old fart. Now, now swingman, Doncha know that the proper term is CURMUDGEON? |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"Swingman" wrote On that same note (corporate/government ineptness) can someone who has qualified for Medicare longer than I tell why the hell a Medicare Card is just that much bigger than a credit card so that it can not possibly fit in a wallet? Reminds me of a (paper) newsletter that was sent out to support some kinda special software that I needed to maintain. This was some odd size that could NOT be put into any file, folder or binder. It created absolute havoc because there was no way to store this much needed info. I raised hell about it. So did a lot of other folks. After a month or two, they relented and whined that it would cost a litttle more to publish a standard sized newsletter that could actually be stored/used properly. A year or two later it came out that they got the idea from Microsoft. Why am I not surprised? |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Aug 4, 1:23 pm, mac davis wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:10:32 -0400, Jack Stein wrote: My money is on Thunderbird vs OE with to following protocol but I'm always looking for MS getting something right... -- Jack http://jbstein.com Micro$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 **** in a bag, if you market it enough.. How many of us, beginning with Dos, have been unpaid beta testers for M$? Can we get a show of hands? lol mac Please remove splinters before emailing Unfortunately, you can say that about almost all software producers, and about many hardware producers, too. The computer industry as a whole has gotten away with more screwing of buyers than any five other industries combined, except, maybe, car makers who have had about a half century more experience in screwing the consumer without Vaseline. |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
Jack Stein wrote: My money is on Thunderbird vs OE with to following protocol but I'm always looking for MS getting something right... mac davis wrote: Micro$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 **** 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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"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) |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:26:45 -0400, Jack Stein
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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
Tom Veatch wrote:
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:26:45 -0400, Jack Stein 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... |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:38:54 -0500, "Swingman" 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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:08:44 GMT, FrozenNorth
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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
Tom Veatch wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:08:44 GMT, FrozenNorth 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.... |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
"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) |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:24:08 -0700, "charlie"
wrote: Tom Veatch wrote in message .. . .. 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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:00:52 -0500, "Swingman" 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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
Tom Veatch wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:24:08 -0700, "charlie" wrote: Tom Veatch wrote in message . .. .. 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... |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:46:34 GMT, FrozenNorth
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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:19:52 -0500, wrote:
I'm fairly sure the "2038 Bug" is not going to present me much of a problem ... Me either - I'd be 101 :-). |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
Tom Veatch wrote:
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:26:45 -0400, Jack Stein 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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:18:48 -0400, Jack Stein
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 |
FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS
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 ****es off the competent and kills the innocent. -- Jack http://jbstein.com |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:59 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter