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)

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.

"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)

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.

"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)

"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)

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

"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)

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

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

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."

"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)

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

"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)

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

"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

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

"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)

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.

"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)

"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?

"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, 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.

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

"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)

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

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...

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

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

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....

"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)

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

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

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...

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

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 :-).

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

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

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

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