RE: Windows 95 support ?

RE: Windows 95 support ?

[Dave Korn]

On 27 April 2006 05:46, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

> 
> Sorry folks, this is going to probably have to wait until the weekend.  But
> I am still about 99.44% confident that this is solvable in a reasonably
> painless manner.
> 

  Gary!  This is win95 we're talking about!  It's *meant* to hurt!


  As it happens, I'm about 100% confident that I can solve *any* problem in a
reasonably painless manner.

  That's because I've got a lot of anesthetics, not because I have a great
deal of skill.

  Never forget, "pain" and "permanent lasting damage" are two very different
categories, and there's enough loophole there to drive a cart and horses
through!

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Windows 95 support ?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:16:08PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>As it happens, I'm about 100% confident that I can solve *any* problem
>in a reasonably painless manner.
>
>That's because I've got a lot of anesthetics, not because I have a
>great deal of skill.

Ouch.  I just found out that my stitches still hurt if I laugh hard
enough.

cgf

RE: Windows 95 support ?

[Dave Korn]

On 27 April 2006 16:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:16:08PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> As it happens, I'm about 100% confident that I can solve *any* problem
>> in a reasonably painless manner.
>> 
>> That's because I've got a lot of anesthetics, not because I have a
>> great deal of skill.
> 
> Ouch.  I just found out that my stitches still hurt if I laugh hard
> enough.
> 
> cgf

  We need some kind of tag that's a bit more than a C&C warning for that kind
of situation.  How about we invent the S&H ("Stitches and hernias) warning?

  Or maybe just "DANGER: This post may cause prolapse."

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Windows 95 support ?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:45:40PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 27 April 2006 16:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:16:08PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>>As it happens, I'm about 100% confident that I can solve *any* problem
>>>in a reasonably painless manner.
>>>
>>>That's because I've got a lot of anesthetics, not because I have a
>>>great deal of skill.
>>
>>Ouch.  I just found out that my stitches still hurt if I laugh hard
>>enough.
>
>We need some kind of tag that's a bit more than a C&C warning for that
>kind of situation.  How about we invent the S&H ("Stitches and hernias)
>warning?
>
>Or maybe just "DANGER: This post may cause prolapse."

Given my operation there was also the possibility of another unfortunate
side-effect which, thankfully, did not occur.  Thank-you, Dr.  Kegel.

cgf

RE: Windows 95 support ?

[Dave Korn]

On 27 April 2006 16:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:45:40PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 27 April 2006 16:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:16:08PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>>> As it happens, I'm about 100% confident that I can solve *any* problem
>>>> in a reasonably painless manner.
>>>> 
>>>> That's because I've got a lot of anesthetics, not because I have a
>>>> great deal of skill.
>>> 
>>> Ouch.  I just found out that my stitches still hurt if I laugh hard
>>> enough.
>> 
>> We need some kind of tag that's a bit more than a C&C warning for that
>> kind of situation.  How about we invent the S&H ("Stitches and hernias)
>> warning? 
>> 
>> Or maybe just "DANGER: This post may cause prolapse."
> 
> Given my operation there was also the possibility of another unfortunate
> side-effect which, thankfully, did not occur.  Thank-you, Dr.  Kegel.
> 
> cgf


  Wow!  He doesn't just maintain crosstool, he's a whiz with the scalpel too?
Not a lot of people know that!

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Windows 95 support ?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:52:09PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 27 April 2006 16:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Given my operation there was also the possibility of another
>>unfortunate side-effect which, thankfully, did not occur.  Thank-you,
>>Dr.  Kegel.
>
>Wow! He doesn't just maintain crosstool, he's a whiz with the scalpel
>too?  Not a lot of people know that!

I just know Dr. Kegel by reputation.  I think it's a different guy,
though.

cgf

RE: Windows 95 support ?

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> From: Dave Korn
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:16 AM
> To: Thread TITTTL'd!
> Subject: RE: Windows 95 support ?
> 
> On 27 April 2006 05:46, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Sorry folks, this is going to probably have to wait until 
> the weekend.  
> > But I am still about 99.44% confident that this is solvable in a 
> > reasonably painless manner.
> > 
> 
>   Gary!  This is win95 we're talking about!  It's *meant* to hurt!
> 

Welp, I'll give you that one.

> 
>   As it happens, I'm about 100% confident that I can solve 
> *any* problem in a reasonably painless manner.
> 
>   That's because I've got a lot of anesthetics, not because I 
> have a great deal of skill.
> 

Well then, just think of this as the sleeping pill that makes dreams happen.
Wait, no, that's Peggy Hill from King of the Hill.  Same idea though.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

Re: Windows 95 support ?

[George]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 08:22:07PM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, George wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:43:03PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > > On 26 April 2006 15:30, mwoehlke wrote:
> > >
> > > > Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:04:40AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > >>> Christopher Faylor, le Tue 25 Apr 2006 14:05:54 -0400, a ?crit :
> > > >>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:01:49PM +0000, g.r.vansickle@xxxxx
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > >>                                             tsk, tsk.
> > > >>
> > > >> This really is a losing battle isn't it?
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone considered reconfiguring the mail software to 'correct'
> > > > this automatically?
> > >
> > >   Well, it's trivial to configure rewriting of email headers.
> > >
> > >  But we're talking about body text here, and the web archive of this
> > >  list.  If you keep what you present to the world as an authentic
> > >  record of what people wrote, then there are moral and perhaps even
> > >  legal implications if you feel you're allowed to rewrite it - even in
> > >  what seems a mechanical and trivial way, the thing is that what you
> > >  are then presenting in your "archive" is in fact *not verbatim*.
> >
> > IIRC, Google does something similar for their archives of usenet (aka
> > Google Groups) postings.  Admittedly, munging email body content isn't
> > trivial, but not impossible, either, made easier by the fact that any
> > email address would invariably be part of single-line attribution.
> > You're correct in saying it wouldn't be varbatim, but I wonder how
> > important that really is.
> 
> Heh.  Try reading a piece of LaTeX preamble code in comp.text.tex (which
> makes heavy use of the @ sign) on Google groups...  The cut-and-paste
> approach produces mostly rubbish, as Dave so eloquently put it.

Again, I find Google Groups mostly unreadable, and unusable, so I'm not
surprised.  I use mutt for news as well as mail, so my comp.text.tex
archive is perfectly readable, albeit with the colouring thrown off on
occasion.  Still, body-content munging can be appropriate in certain
circumstances.

> -- 
> Igor
>              http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
>              pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
>   .-"-.        
>  /|6 6|\     Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)      
> {/(_0_)\}    old name: Igor Pechtchanski               
>  _/ ^ \_     Wag wag wag. Woof!             
> (/ /^\ \)-'                                                                                  
>  ""' '""     "Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu 
>              t'en rends compte."  "But no -- you are no fool; you call
>              yourself a fool, there's proof enough in  that!" --
>              Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"
>

Especially in the event that you're a dog owner who suffers the daily
ignominity of living in a neighbourhood where the cats are so numerous
one would think they were lawn ornaments. ;-)

-- 
George

Re: Windows 95 support ?

[Igor Peshansky]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, George wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:43:03PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > On 26 April 2006 15:30, mwoehlke wrote:
> >
> > > Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:04:40AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > >>> Christopher Faylor, le Tue 25 Apr 2006 14:05:54 -0400, a ?crit :
> > >>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:01:49PM +0000, g.r.vansickle@xxxxx
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >>                                             tsk, tsk.
> > >>
> > >> This really is a losing battle isn't it?
> > >
> > > Has anyone considered reconfiguring the mail software to 'correct'
> > > this automatically?
> >
> >   Well, it's trivial to configure rewriting of email headers.
> >
> >  But we're talking about body text here, and the web archive of this
> >  list.  If you keep what you present to the world as an authentic
> >  record of what people wrote, then there are moral and perhaps even
> >  legal implications if you feel you're allowed to rewrite it - even in
> >  what seems a mechanical and trivial way, the thing is that what you
> >  are then presenting in your "archive" is in fact *not verbatim*.
>
> IIRC, Google does something similar for their archives of usenet (aka
> Google Groups) postings.  Admittedly, munging email body content isn't
> trivial, but not impossible, either, made easier by the fact that any
> email address would invariably be part of single-line attribution.
> You're correct in saying it wouldn't be varbatim, but I wonder how
> important that really is.

Heh.  Try reading a piece of LaTeX preamble code in comp.text.tex (which
makes heavy use of the @ sign) on Google groups...  The cut-and-paste
approach produces mostly rubbish, as Dave so eloquently put it.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

Re: Windows 95 support ?

[mwoehlke]

George wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:43:03PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 26 April 2006 15:30, mwoehlke wrote:
>>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:04:40AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>>>> Christopher Faylor, le Tue 25 Apr 2006 14:05:54 -0400, a ?crit :
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:01:49PM +0000, g.r.vansickle@xxxxx
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>                                             tsk, tsk.
>>>>
>>>> This really is a losing battle isn't it?
>>> Has anyone considered reconfiguring the mail software to 'correct'
>>> this automatically?
>>   Well, it's trivial to configure rewriting of email headers.
>>
>>  But we're talking about body text here, and the web archive of this
>>  list.  If you keep what you present to the world as an authentic
>>  record of what people wrote, then there are moral and perhaps even
>>  legal implications if you feel you're allowed to rewrite it - even in
>>  what seems a mechanical and trivial way, the thing is that what you
>>  are then presenting in your "archive" is in fact *not verbatim*.
>  
> You're correct in saying it wouldn't be varbatim, but I wonder how
> important that really is.  My own carefully-preserved archives of
> correspondence and list subscriptions go back years, but I'd be the
> first to admit that most of it is rubbish, including anything written by
> me.
> 
> As for any related legal issues, I'd wager a hippo to a dollar that
> Google's lawyers have sorted them out long ago.
> 
>> Plus the problems it would cause when somebody quotes a bit of program
>> code with an at sign in it that triggers a false positive and gets
>> mangled into non-compilable gibberish.
> 
> Might be a fair compromise.  Personally, I find Google's interface
> unreadable, but I doubt I'm alone in saying that I appreciate the
> lengths they've gone to in preserving the confidentiality of personal
> information. 

Also, if the munge is "@" -> "<at>", it's not that hard to reverse with 
gray matter. I wouldn't do anything more severe than that (like 
obliterating the domain, for example, as was done in the post I 
originally replied to).

As for the legal/ethical/moral issues, as long as you *tell* people you 
do it, I don't think it's a big deal. It's not like you're changing the 
meaning of their message (although you may be positively misrepresenting 
their intelligence :-D).

-- 
Matthew
All of my signatures are 100% original. Including this one.

Re: Windows 95 support ?

[George]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:43:03PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 26 April 2006 15:30, mwoehlke wrote:
> 
> > Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:04:40AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >>> Christopher Faylor, le Tue 25 Apr 2006 14:05:54 -0400, a ?crit :
> >>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:01:49PM +0000, g.r.vansickle@xxxxx
> >>>> wrote:
> >>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>                                             tsk, tsk.
> >> 
> >> This really is a losing battle isn't it?
> > 
> > Has anyone considered reconfiguring the mail software to 'correct'
> > this automatically?
> 
>   Well, it's trivial to configure rewriting of email headers.
> 
>  But we're talking about body text here, and the web archive of this
>  list.  If you keep what you present to the world as an authentic
>  record of what people wrote, then there are moral and perhaps even
>  legal implications if you feel you're allowed to rewrite it - even in
>  what seems a mechanical and trivial way, the thing is that what you
>  are then presenting in your "archive" is in fact *not verbatim*.
 
IIRC, Google does something similar for their archives of usenet (aka
Google Groups) postings.  Admittedly, munging email body content isn't
trivial, but not impossible, either, made easier by the fact that any
email address would invariably be part of single-line attribution.
You're correct in saying it wouldn't be varbatim, but I wonder how
important that really is.  My own carefully-preserved archives of
correspondence and list subscriptions go back years, but I'd be the
first to admit that most of it is rubbish, including anything written by
me.

As for any related legal issues, I'd wager a hippo to a dollar that
Google's lawyers have sorted them out long ago.

> Plus the problems it would cause when somebody quotes a bit of program
> code with an at sign in it that triggers a false positive and gets
> mangled into non-compilable gibberish.

Might be a fair compromise.  Personally, I find Google's interface
unreadable, but I doubt I'm alone in saying that I appreciate the
lengths they've gone to in preserving the confidentiality of personal
information. 

-- 
George

RE: Windows 95 support ?

[Dave Korn]

On 26 April 2006 15:30, mwoehlke wrote:

> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:04:40AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> Christopher Faylor, le Tue 25 Apr 2006 14:05:54 -0400, a ?crit :
>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:01:49PM +0000, g.r.vansickle@xxxxx wrote:
>>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ tsk, tsk.
>> 
>> This really is a losing battle isn't it?
> 
> Has anyone considered reconfiguring the mail software to 'correct' this
> automatically?

  Well, it's trivial to configure rewriting of email headers.

  But we're talking about body text here, and the web archive of this list.
If you keep what you present to the world as an authentic record of what
people wrote, then there are moral and perhaps even legal implications if you
feel you're allowed to rewrite it - even in what seems a mechanical and
trivial way, the thing is that what you are then presenting in your "archive"
is in fact *not verbatim*.

  Plus the problems it would cause when somebody quotes a bit of program code
with an at sign in it that triggers a false positive and gets mangled into
non-compilable gibberish.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Windows 95 support ?

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:04:40AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor, le Tue 25 Apr 2006 14:05:54 -0400, a ?crit :
>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:01:49PM +0000, g.r.vansickle@xxxxx wrote:
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> tsk, tsk.
> 
> This really is a losing battle isn't it?

Has anyone considered reconfiguring the mail software to 'correct' this 
automatically?

-- 
Matthew
All of my signatures are 100% original. Including this one.