Definitively. But complaining doesn't really do much without a proof. It's easier to
prove a hack (in the form of illegal entry) or spam mail
than proving a troll, because a troll is defined by those being trolled (us) whereas a
hack or a spam is found in different log files.
Still, if nobody
Stephen Whitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He claimed to be a programmer, but then over and over he claimed that
> bugs should *always* be caught in testing, prior to release. That
> proves he's lying, because no programmer can believe that happens in
> the real world.
A complete set of test-c
I second that.
At 16:33 06/06/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>NO MORE. The end..
>
>
>Chris Jefferson, Girton College, Cambridge, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>I have a proof that x^n+y^n=z^n never has integer solutions for n>2.
>However, it
From: Gustav Schaffter
> The guy is trolling. We are all going into his troll. (This
> is proven by the fact that he just *wont* stop.)
Amen to that. No one can possibly thing that *everything* works from their
point of view and everyone else's view is wrong or unimportant. I would
think that an
NO MORE. The end..
Chris Jefferson, Girton College, Cambridge, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a proof that x^n+y^n=z^n never has integer solutions for n>2.
However, it won't fit into my signature file
At 03:53 PM 6/6/99 +0200, you wrote:
>To everyone reading (and answering) this subject:
>
>The guy is trolling. We are all going into his troll. (This is proven by the
>fact that he just *wont* stop.)
I agree, he's trolling. He claimed to be a programmer, but then over and
over he claimed that
To everyone reading (and answering) this subject:
The guy is trolling. We are all going into his troll. (This is proven by the fact that
he just *wont* stop.)
Trolling is a technique used on the News lists since long time. Sometimes with
disastrous result for the list. It's been quite rare on
On Sat, Jun 05, 1999 at 11:07:04PM -0600, Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Erm? Regardless of when I found out, it remains a fact that to release
> non-beta software to the general public without a thorough testing *is* a rash
> act.
The software *was* tested - the testing missed t
My motivation is to help. This spectacular bug caused some of my help to have
been wasted.
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
> Here are my ideas on bugs:
> Bugs happen! They're a fact of life, omnipresent in all software.
Showstopper bugs should not slip through testing and into release software.
> Bugs should allways be caught in the testing, but so often they aren't.
Minor bugs yes, massive showstoppers no.
> In t
> Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> > Sounds like a lot to me. This CPU I have can finish LL tests in
> that kind of
> > time, except that I have a habit of using it for other things a
> lot of the
> > time.
>
> It may seem like a long time to you, but I've been interested in Mersenne
> Primes as an observ
"Rick Pali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that anyone's trying to flame anyone at all, but I can't
[the rest is missing]
???
> ... might it not be a good idea to ask to be apprised of the situation
> before accusing the very people who make all this possible of
> being "completely
All,
alright, everybody break it up!
>> Well, you've dropped the annoying Mandelbrot quote, but you're still
>> trying to stir up trouble on my favorite mailing list.
>
> I'm not trying to stir up trouble. However, between your insulting of my sig
> file (absent temporarily, due to my ISP's mail
Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> Sounds like a lot to me. This CPU I have can finish LL tests in that kind of
> time, except that I have a habit of using it for other things a lot of the
> time.
It may seem like a long time to you, but I've been interested in Mersenne
Primes as an observer since around 1
From: Paul Derbyshire
> and your accusing me of flame-baiting, I begin
> to suspect that you, who I formerly had not even
> noticed, are in fact trying to flame-bait the list.
I don't think that anyone's trying to flame anyone at all, but I can't
> > Evidently you haven't been monitoring the l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, you've dropped the annoying Mandelbrot quote, but you're still
> trying to stir up trouble on my favorite mailing list.
I'm not trying to stir up trouble. However, between your insulting of my sig
file (absent temporarily, due to my ISP's mail trouble and my cons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5 Jun 99, at 8:23, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> If you check the source code...
I don't have it.
> And, because of a "feature" dating back to days when exponents were
> small, none of the test data sets in the program self-test would
> trigger the bug. So "normal" testin
Well, you've dropped the annoying Mandelbrot quote, but you're still trying
to stir up trouble on my favorite mailing list.
In a message dated 6/5/99 10:27:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Are you sure of that? What if the bug didn't happen to strike my run, or the
> e
>
> If what you say is true, then whoever designed version 17 acted in a
> completely unconscionably rash manner by releasing it without thoroughly
> testing it for problems as serious as that. And has therefore shot the whole
> GIMPS effort in the foot by setting it back many weeks.
>
> Hopeful
At 08:23 AM 1999/06/05 MDT, Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Peter Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is normal. Because of the bug in v17, all the math it was doing
>> was wrong, so using that 77% would have been a waste since it was
>> incorrect data. There is no need to t
At 08:23 6/5/99 MDT, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>Peter Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is normal. Because of the bug in v17, all the math it was doing
>> was wrong, so using that 77% would have been a waste since it was
>> incorrect data. There is no need to try and retrieve that data.
Peter Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is normal. Because of the bug in v17, all the math it was doing
> was wrong, so using that 77% would have been a waste since it was
> incorrect data. There is no need to try and retrieve that data. It's
> useless.
Are you sure of that? What if t
This is normal. Because of the bug in v17, all the math it was doing was
wrong, so using that 77% would have been a waste since it was incorrect
data. There is no need to try and retrieve that data. It's useless.
--Peter
At 04:11 06/04/1999 -0600, you wrote:
>Before the upgrade, I was 77% of
23 matches
Mail list logo
