RE: [opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
On Tuesday, December 19, 2006 @ 1:13 PM, Hugo Costelha wrote: >On Tuesday 19 December 2006 17:50, M Harris wrote: >> On Sunday 17 December 2006 20:47, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote: >> > Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times? >> >> A stopped clock is right twice a day >> >Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one >18:15 per day... >Hugo Unless it stopped at 02:00 on the day that Daylight Savings Time ends. Greg Wallace -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
>>> Not here at all. My clock is a strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"), so it's right
>>> once every 68 or 136 years, given that Unixtime is the base.
>>
>> Showoff ;-þ
>>
>Well, I've got a 64 bit system, which means that it's 4 billion times
>longer! ;-)
time_t should still be only 32 bit. Currently.
-`J'
--
Re: [opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
> On 2006-12-19 14:20, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
>> Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
>>
>>
> A stopped clock is right twice a day
>
>
Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one
18:15 per day...
>>> That also depends on whether it stopped on Feb 29 -- then it will be
>>> right again in 4 years :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Not here at all. My clock is a strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"), so it's right
>> once every 68 or 136 years, given that Unixtime is the base.
>>
>>
>
> Showoff ;-þ
>
>
Well, I've got a 64 bit system, which means that it's 4 billion times
longer! ;-)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
On 2006-12-19 14:20, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
>
A stopped clock is right twice a day
>>> Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one
>>> 18:15 per day...
>>>
>> That also depends on whether it stopped on Feb 29 -- then it will be
>> right again in 4 years :-)
>>
>
> Not here at all. My clock is a strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"), so it's right
> once every 68 or 136 years, given that Unixtime is the base.
>
Showoff ;-þ
--
The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s²
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times?
>>> A stopped clock is right twice a day
>>
>> Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one
>> 18:15 per day...
>
>That also depends on whether it stopped on Feb 29 -- then it will be
>right again in 4 years :-)
Not here at all. My clock is a strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"), so it's right
once every 68 or 136 years, given that Unixtime is the base.
-`J'
--
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
On 2006-12-19 13:12, Hugo Costelha wrote: > On Tuesday 19 December 2006 17:50, M Harris wrote: > >> On Sunday 17 December 2006 20:47, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote: >> >>> Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times? >>> >> A stopped clock is right twice a day >> >> > > Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one > 18:15 per day... That also depends on whether it stopped on Feb 29 -- then it will be right again in 4 years :-) -- The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s² -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 17:50, M Harris wrote: > On Sunday 17 December 2006 20:47, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote: > > Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times? > > A stopped clock is right twice a day > Not here. Here a stopped clock is ony right once a day. There is only one 18:15 per day... Hugo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
On Sunday 17 December 2006 20:47, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote: > Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times? A stopped clock is right twice a day -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
On Sunday 17 December 2006 18:47, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote: > > > No as I have see it there are a few fools who really have a few > > > answers. > > > > Eh? I cannot decipher that. Please try to clarify or amplify. > > > > > > Randall Schulz > > Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times? I suppose. They can always use a random sentence generator... RRS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
> > No as I have see it there are a few fools who really have a few > > answers. > > Eh? I cannot decipher that. Please try to clarify or amplify. > > > Randall Schulz Is he trying to say even an idiot can be right some times? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
On Sunday 17 December 2006 18:28, John Bright wrote: > On Saturday 04 November 2006 10:21, Randall R Schulz wrote: > > You might want to consider the perspective of the subscribers who > > have been here for years and whose ratio of answers supplied to > > questions asked is high but who nonetheless stick around in order > > to be a service to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users. > > > > Perhaps you can see how we'd grow weary of the panoply of faux pas > > that stream in daily. > > > > It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense > > and let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the > > newbies in order to instruct them on the way intelligent list > > interactions are carried on? I'm in the latter camp. > > No as I have see it there are a few fools who really have a few > answers. Eh? I cannot decipher that. Please try to clarify or amplify. Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
On Saturday 04 November 2006 10:21, Randall R Schulz wrote: No as I have see it there are a few fools who really have a few answers. > > You might want to consider the perspective of the subscribers who have > been here for years and whose ratio of answers supplied to questions > asked is high but who nonetheless stick around in order to be a service > to the community of (Enlgish-speaking) SuSE users. > > Perhaps you can see how we'd grow weary of the panoply of faux pas that > stream in daily. > > It's the same old debate: Do you forgive all the crap and nonsense and > let the list devolve into drivel or to you ride herd on the newbies in > order to instruct them on the way intelligent list interactions are > carried on? I'm in the latter camp. > > > Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
M Harris wrote: > On Saturday 04 November 2006 04:28, HG wrote: > > Now, why "windoze" instead of Windows? I'm a protestant. Its called a > protest. Call it flaming disrespect... for a marketing company who has > illegally (IMO) set computer science back 25 years, robbed other hard working > American inventors of their inventions (livelyhood), and their dignity. Who > have hamstrung American industry almost beyond repair... and who are > unrepentant filthy greedy opportunists ... and those are only the nice things > I can honestly think to say about the M$ company. Bravo! and well-said indeed Mr Harris. I am keeping this entire message as a reminder (it's much better enunciated than i could have), of the rotten monopolistic behaviour of said M$ corporation. Keep on protesting...BrianB. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse] Re: [SLE] Why this attitude on this list against newbies? (Was: Re: [SLE] CPU-Z For Linux?)
On Sunday 05 November 2006 09:10, HG wrote: > And still, this was *only an example* to illustrate the point that I > had. Nothing personal (I did leave you guys out, but you both stepped > in by yourself). Thank you. Your point is well taken, and for myself, I will try to be more kind and less pedantic. Every now and then all of us need that reminder... especially me. You are correct... most lists tend towards the "attitude" you described... I think it is because we can't see each others faces and we forget that each of us is a person with feelings. I'll try to remember that. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
