On Wednesday, July 06, 2005, at 02:41 PM, Avi Yashar wrote:
>> You were the one making the semantic comment. I have to counter it
>> with similar semantic commentary.
> Allie, you are not obliged to "counter" everything I say.
You may have misunderstood 'have to' used the way I did. It could hav
--On 6 July 2005 14:20:45 -0500 Allie Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don't forget to zip it!!!
You zip it, I'll talk all I want :)
I'll send them to you... Er, what is it I have to do again?
--
Tony.
i.
Current beta is 3.51 | '
On Wednesday, July 06, 2005, at 02:09 PM, Tony Boom wrote:
> Well 9Val has had them for the past month. He might still be correcting the
> spelling mistakes though
I'm pretty familiar with how the log goes too. You could send me the
log for a short problem session. I could have a look as well
On 7/6/05, Allie Martin wrote:
> With all the sudden jumps or changes in TB! version numbering that's
> intended and not a typo, there has always been a mathematical increase
> in the numbers.
That is not exactly correct. If you recall, 3.5.30 was followed by
3.5.0.31 (or something like that). And
--On 6 July 2005 13:28:12 -0500 Allie Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3.10 is less than 3.9
3.1 is less than 3.9
So if the bus comes at 3.10 and you get to the bus stop at 3.9 how many
oranges will be left in the basket after you ate 1?
--
Tony.
i.
__
--On 6 July 2005 14:02:36 -0400 Vili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The method RL would like to walk is a more painful one, but if it
works, it should be faster. Once, I wrote a software, it made a search
in a protein database in 1.5 sec. I managed to optimize the method
(through many p
On Wednesday, July 06, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Avi Yashar wrote:
> Allie, I said 3.10, not 3.1. Please see Alexander Kunz's explanation.
> I believe he said it better than I did.
Version numbering almost always exhibits a natural mathematical
progression unless, the number defines a date or have some
Hello Tony,
> --On 6 July 2005 12:47:57 -0400 Vili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> User clicks on a mail, download it. Dont use the local cache...
>> Problem solved.
> Here, here. I think they should ditch the spooling method as well, I think
> that's where most of the problem lies, but then
8 matches
Mail list logo