On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 06:43:40PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> On 10/4/06, David Cantrell wrote:
> >That sucks particularly hard when you're trying to organise classical
> >music (and oh what a nasty overloaded term that is).
>
> Heh, I bet most of the people coding such tools consider classical to
On 10/4/06, David Cantrell wrote:
That sucks particularly hard when you're trying to organise classical
music (and oh what a nasty overloaded term that is).
Heh, I bet most of the people coding such tools consider classical to
be anything from before the 1980's.
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:10:58PM -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
> With iTunes, I can easily say "every song from an album
> with 'Greatest Hits' in the title" or "every song that I rated 3+ stars and is
> not in the genre 'chick music'" and so on. It stores quite a lot of dat
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Shawn P. Stanley wrote:
> Gmail uses the "Sender:" line to show which Gmail account you're
> sending from regardless of how you've configured your "From:" or
> "Reply-To:" lines. Just in case anyone cares about your Gmail
> account. But why should they, unless you're dealing
* "Shawn P. Stanley" [2006-10-04T11:59:57]
> Gmail uses the "Sender:" line to show which Gmail account you're
> sending from regardless of how you've configured your "From:" or
> "Reply-To:" lines. Just in case anyone cares about your Gmail
> account. But why should they, unless you're dealing i
Gmail uses the "Sender:" line to show which Gmail account you're
sending from regardless of how you've configured your "From:" or
"Reply-To:" lines. Just in case anyone cares about your Gmail
account. But why should they, unless you're dealing in kiddie p0rn?
So why do Outlook, Outlook Express,
Only Microsoft could fuck up a file search function this badly.
That sucks. I guess I should be thankful for the few minor reasons I
hate Apple's latest search.
No thanks, I don't want your stupid search widget taking up that
much space in my menu bar. Especially since you've locked it to the
f
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 02:52:04PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> So far the culprits seem to be Outlook 2003 and Entourage. How does
> Microsoft manage to keep fucking up their SMTP implementation?
By employing interns to do this?
Different interns each year?
Nicholas Clark
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Adam Atlas wrote:
> Dear MSN and other authors of email address validators who don't read the RFC,
> The ASCII plus sign is a valid character in email addresses.
My current hate is MUAs that:
(1) Don't check email address syntax before trying to send a message.
(2) When the
On 10/4/06, Chris Devers wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Joe Mahoney wrote:
It got a surprising amount of mileage out of that idea, including, among
other things, easy ways to search for things by arbitrary criteria,
because it new, for example, that an email file had attributes like
sender, date, an
On or about Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:50:09PM -0700, jrod...@hate.spamportal.net
typed:
>here's a puzzle for you!
>
> mods/artists/Hacker/Sad_Daze.xm
>
>What could the artist name be? Most Libraries will answer "".
What you want is clearly Rockbox. Well, all right, it isn't because it
doesn't h
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 00:01 -0400, Adam Atlas wrote:
> Dear MSN and other authors of email address validators who don't read
> the RFC,
>
> The ASCII plus sign is a valid character in email addresses.
Yes, even the BBC, who on face value have some rather cluefull
developers working for them, go
Dear MSN and other authors of email address validators who don't read
the RFC,
The ASCII plus sign is a valid character in email addresses.
I will kill you.
Love,
Adam
> Yah, I would have disconnected the other drives before trying
> that... I think I've been burned there before.
I did that.
So it stuck them on the other partition of the same drive.
So now partition 1, where it's installed, isn't the bootable partition.
Partition 2 is the bootable partition.
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:59:20PM +0100, Martin Ebourne wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 23:51 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > The filesystem is not a good way to organise music. For small
> > libraries it's OK. To navigate big ones, it blows.
>
> The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organ
I had a long rant typed out here about the USPS, and their use of logins
to do something as simple as print a label and buy postage for the package
at the same time. The rant didn't read very well, and boiled down to this:
YOU DON'T NEED ME TO COME UP WITH A UNIQUE LOGIN NAME.
For years now I've
On 10/4/06, Chris Devers wrote:
Provide hierarchy, metadata, and efficient search. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_File_System
Can't argue with that. But until then, iTunes still wins.
Joe
* Ricardo SIGNES [2006-10-04 01:00]:
> With iTunes, I can easily say "every song from an album with
> 'Greatest Hits' in the title" or "every song that I rated 3+
> stars and is not in the genre 'chick music'" and so on. It
> stores quite a lot of data about your music that can be used to
> build
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Joe Mahoney wrote:
> I personally like to be able to organise music by stuff like BPM,
> genre, length (which isn't the same as file size) as well as
> artist/album/song. I'm not sure how you'd structure a filesystem to
> make that easy.
Provide hierarchy, metadata, and eff
On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Joe Mahoney wrote:
I personally like to be able to organise music by stuff like BPM,
genre, length (which isn't the same as file size) as well as
artist/album/song. I'm not sure how you'd structure a filesystem to
make that easy.
WinFS, anyone?
I wouldn't mind a se
* Martin Ebourne [2006-10-04 00:50]:
> I organise my emails in folders, but the email program still
> has a search function.
And when I'm not looking at new mail, I'm using search to find an
old one. I used folders as a *very* broad categorisation only,
because if I file too fastidiously, I invar
On 10/4/06, Martin Ebourne wrote:
The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organise music. So long
as it's all laid out consistently, which is the software's job.
(sound-juicer works well for me, sorry that was rather off topic).
If by "excellent" you mean "fundamentally crippled" I'd ag
* Martin Ebourne [2006-10-03T17:59:20]
> On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 23:51 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > The filesystem is not a good way to organise music. For small
> > libraries it's OK. To navigate big ones, it blows.
> The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organise music. So long
> as it'
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 00:05 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Martin Ebourne [2006-10-04 00:00]:
> > The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organise music.
> > So long as it's all laid out consistently, which is the
> > software's job.
>
> Until that one time when you want to look for files
* Martin Ebourne [2006-10-04 00:00]:
> The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organise music.
> So long as it's all laid out consistently, which is the
> software's job.
Until that one time when you want to look for files based on
a different primary criterion from the primary one used fo
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 23:51 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> The filesystem is not a good way to organise music. For small
> libraries it's OK. To navigate big ones, it blows.
The filesystem is an entirely excellent way to organise music. So long
as it's all laid out consistently, which is the softwar
26 matches
Mail list logo
