I think he was being cynical. If you only look at the facts you want to see, then the case can be misrepresented into a totally different issue.
Ray At 02:32 PM 12/14/2004, you wrote: >I fail to see the revelance of the first two lines. > >Are you implying that because he was white, that they must have really had >solid evidence that he was guilty in order to convict >him? > >-Gel > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jerry Johnson > >Scott Peterson, a white man, was convicted of killing his wife. >OJ Simpson, a black man, was not convicted of killing his wife. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:139853 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54 From jeff Tue Dec 14 23:33:29 2004 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery-Date: Tue Dec 14 15:33:29 2004 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Envelope-to: archive@jab.org Delivery-date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:33:29 -0800 Received: from exprod5mx121.postini.com ([64.18.0.35] helo=psmtp.com) by toko.jab.org with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CeMAb-0003VH-00 for <archive@jab.org>; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:33:29 -0800 Received: from source ([12.107.209.250]) by exprod5mx121.postini.com ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:36:08 CST Received: (qmail 4286 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2004 23:36:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 3742 invoked by uid 48); 14 Dec 2004 23:35:54 -0000 Date: 14 Dec 2004 23:35:54 -0000 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Bug target/18910] [4.0 Regression] unrecognisable insn in regclass on x86/amd64 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:94.8624 C:98.9754 ) X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c X-pstn-addresses: from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [294/10] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on toko.jab.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.64 ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-14 23:35 ------- *** Bug 19000 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hjl at lucon dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18910 From jeff Tue Dec 14 23:33:37 2004 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery-Date: Tue Dec 14 15:33:37 2004 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Envelope-to: archive@jab.org Delivery-date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:33:37 -0800 Received: from exprod5mx54.postini.com ([64.18.0.233] helo=psmtp.com) by toko.jab.org with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CeMAj-0003VQ-00 for <archive@jab.org>; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:33:37 -0800 Received: from source ([209.237.227.199]) by exprod5mx54.postini.com ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:36:17 PST Received: (qmail 84061 invoked by uid 500); 14 Dec 2004 23:36:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] list-help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> list-post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 84043 invoked by uid 99); 14 Dec 2004 23:36:00 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from jnumail1.state.ak.us (HELO jnumail1.state.ak.us) (146.63.248.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:35:56 -0800 Received: from smtpj.state.ak.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jnumail1.state.ak.us (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.02 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:36:53 -0900 (AKST) Received: from [146.63.189.136] by smtpj.state.ak.us (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.02 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:36:52 -0900 (AKST) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:36:51 -0900 From: Elaine Nance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Question on timeout In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:94.8624 C:98.9754 ) X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.0750) GT3 gt2 gt1 r p m c X-pstn-addresses: from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [294/10] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on toko.jab.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no version=2.64 Maybe the timeout settings? or set up TCPMonitor and see whats going back and forth. Yu Feng wrote: > Thanks for help! > > The computer where this connection problem occurs is our application server, > so I haven't got a chance to replace network card. However, it runs all > other non-Axis applications ok that require Internet connection. > > The exact SocketTimeoutException problem also happened in the computers that > I said "almost always receives response" -- but very rarely and I couldn't > recreate it if I aim to. So somehow I think that application server computer > just had worse network configuration that couldn't survive a query most > time. I am wondering if there're some software aspect approach I can look > into? > > I once heard about TCP_NODELAY setup in registry, but apparently there're no > such setting in any computers here. > > Yu Feng > > -----Original Message----- > From: Elaine Nance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 2:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Question on timeout > > > I would bet that the Network Interface Card (NIC) is not working > properly, if it is an issue only for one computer. Or that the > patch cord for the computer is bad, for example if someone > tripped over it, and so on. > > Yu Feng wrote: > > >>>Hi, >>> >>>I have been bothered by a time-out issue for quite a few days and wonder >>>if I can get some help from the mailing list. >>> >>>We have a Axis 1.1 client application that connects to a remote Web >>>Service written also in Axis 1.1. The application almost always receives >>>response in all computers excepts one. In that one particular computer, >>>most time it gets SocketTimeoutException as reported widely in Internet: >>> >>>AxisFault >>>faultCode: {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/}Server.userException >>>faultSubcode: >>>faultString: java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Read timed out >>>faultActor: >>>faultNode: >>>faultDetail: >>>{http://xml.apache.org/axis/}stackTrace: java.net.SocketTimeoutException: >>>Read timed out >>>at java.net.SocketInputStream.socketRead0(Native Method) >>>at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(Unknown Source) >>>... >>> >>>The only answer I found so far is to increase the timeout value (more than >>>60 seconds) of the binding stub. That didn't work for us. >>> >>>However, the application gets response sometimes (about 5% of all the >>>times we tried) without any change. >>> >>>This convinced me that this might be a computer configuration issue. It >>>has same general configuration as another computer that worked -- Windows >>>2000, dynamic IP, on the same network. >>> >>>Somebody would have some clue? >>> >>>Thanks! >>>Yu Feng > > > -- > <~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. > | -- Pablo Picasso -- > <~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > -- <~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. | -- Pablo Picasso -- <~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
