Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #448915 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-23 14:13 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-24 15:02 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 380 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 14:13 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 14:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 22:51 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 16:07 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 23:16 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 16:59 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 17:33 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:12 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 14:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:55 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 10:03 -0500
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:11 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:08 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:15 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:19 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:25 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:32 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 16:42 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:14 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 17:25 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 11:02 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 13:19 -0500
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 11:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:18 -0700
"Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 07:23 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 06:29 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 07:32 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:15 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:42 +0000
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 13:21 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:59 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:11 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:26 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:37 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:51 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-27 07:45 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 07:34 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 09:51 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-27 12:38 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:55 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 16:07 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:33 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:50 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:51 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 14:48 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:54 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:13 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:29 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:47 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:56 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 17:58 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 20:54 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-27 07:34 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 07:28 -0700
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:52 -0700
"Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:12 -0500
Re: "Steve Carroll", ASSuming ASShole Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:33 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 19:58 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:24 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-25 20:54 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 16:18 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 02:45 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 19:52 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 03:07 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 20:17 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 03:46 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 20:57 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 04:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 05:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 02:49 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 14:52 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 08:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:17 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:53 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 10:43 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:09 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:22 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:40 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 21:14 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 15:12 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 23:48 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-26 23:58 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 17:08 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 00:58 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 18:00 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 01:42 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 19:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 02:17 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 19:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 02:51 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 20:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 17:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 01:04 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 18:27 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 01:49 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 20:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 16:29 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 09:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 16:42 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 09:57 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 17:27 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 10:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 10:02 -0700
Password protected FTP folders would work. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-27 10:09 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 10:18 -0700
Students can "collaborate" ( cheat ) using email. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-27 10:25 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 12:33 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 14:12 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 17:32 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 18:32 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 18:47 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 09:53 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 10:02 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 10:50 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 11:00 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 12:13 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 01:33 -0700
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 17:26 +0000
Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 12:31 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:42 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:16 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 11:00 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:30 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:09 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 20:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 20:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 01:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 20:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 23:30 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 08:53 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 09:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 09:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 16:22 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 17:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-25 18:09 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:40 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 10:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 10:46 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 12:47 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 13:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 13:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 14:35 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 15:18 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 16:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 16:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 10:54 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 22:55 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2018-04-29 15:14 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 08:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 15:46 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:08 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 10:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2018-05-01 22:56 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 23:39 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:39 -0400
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 08:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:14 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:28 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 12:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:20 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 16:01 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 16:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 17:01 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 17:31 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:46 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 19:22 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:13 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 20:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 09:54 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 10:24 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 10:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 10:59 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 11:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 12:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 12:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 12:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 12:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 13:59 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:08 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:21 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 14:28 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 16:14 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 16:29 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 17:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 18:30 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 18:58 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 19:25 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:12 -0600
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 07:23 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:46 -0600
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 14:54 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:13 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 18:36 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 06:50 -0500
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 08:06 -0600
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:21 -0400
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 08:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 09:02 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2018-05-01 23:15 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 22:32 -0700
60 images on a single page, and 100 ways to (quickly) refine it. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 20:21 -0700
Re: 60 images on a single page, and 100 ways to (quickly) refine it. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:25 -0700
Re: 60 images on a single page, and 100 ways to (quickly) refine it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 20:50 -0700
I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 21:34 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 22:05 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-30 08:12 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 08:55 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 08:02 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 07:07 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-30 09:36 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-30 11:22 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-30 18:24 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:20 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:15 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:22 -0500
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:29 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:58 -0700
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 00:41 +0000
I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 18:05 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 18:24 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 01:25 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:20 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 12:35 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:31 -0500
I work two jobs. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 08:15 -0700
Re: I work two jobs. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:39 -0400
Not pursuing women saves me time, money and effort. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 09:11 -0700
Re: Not pursuing women saves me time, money and effort. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 13:59 -0400
Re: Not pursuing women saves me time, money and effort. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:29 -0400
Not everyone needs to be a supermodel. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 15:43 -0700
Re: I work two jobs. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:24 -0400
Re: I work two jobs. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 12:31 -0700
I've been living this way for 30 years. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 15:31 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 16:15 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:27 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:34 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 17:43 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 17:37 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:42 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 20:46 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:56 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 17:17 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 18:33 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:02 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 17:59 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 22:50 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 23:45 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 12:48 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:40 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 15:06 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 17:49 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:13 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 18:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 19:14 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 19:47 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:20 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:44 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:52 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 21:30 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 22:49 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-02 02:25 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 19:26 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-02 02:56 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 20:24 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-02 04:06 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 22:31 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 22:52 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 17:13 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 18:30 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 18:01 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 17:58 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:36 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-01 13:47 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 17:16 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 14:50 -0700
You called ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 16:10 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:34 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 13:32 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:48 -0700
I do _not_ eat fast food; I cook. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 16:20 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 18:37 -0700
I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 19:00 -0700
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 19:27 -0700
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 02:30 +0000
I'm not the only couch potato. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 19:46 -0700
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 02:55 +0000
A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-30 20:42 -0700
Re: A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 04:24 +0000
Re: A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 21:42 -0700
Re: A short happy life is better than a long sad one. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:13 -0400
Rubber Vaginas. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 16:02 -0700
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 20:25 -0700
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:05 -0400
Re: I'm not the only couch potato. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:34 -0500
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:24 -0500
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:38 -0700
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 10:59 -0400
Re: I can't motivate myself (much) unless others are there. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 09:08 -0600
No caffine, No alcohol, No women; just a constant "happy". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-01 15:56 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 08:13 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-01 10:34 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 11:28 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-01 15:22 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 18:04 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 08:12 -0400
Re: I'm 58 years old, with the body of an 80 year old. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 16:37 +0000
I've a -lasting- SearchBar. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 20:02 -0700
Re: I've a -lasting- SearchBar. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:15 -0700
Re: I've a -lasting- SearchBar. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 20:18 -0700
SearchBar is standard to FireFox but... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 20:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:10 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-04-24 10:49 +0100
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-24 05:36 -0400
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 08:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 16:51 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 17:05 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 19:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 19:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 19:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 20:48 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 08:50 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 16:14 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:26 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:38 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:34 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:38 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:11 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:32 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 13:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 12:03 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 09:39 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 21:45 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 04:46 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 13:55 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 07:07 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 14:41 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:51 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 15:08 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:21 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:37 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:43 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:54 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 09:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 09:04 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 16:19 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:35 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 07:24 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-27 16:36 +0000
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 09:44 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 07:56 -0700
Re: OT: Talkin' tech owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 15:02 +0000
Page 6 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 01:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f0a80fs8ba.a3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449238 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/26/18 4:58 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You do not see it. Not sure what else there is to say. You disagree. OK. >>>>>>> I am not going to get worked up about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's where it stands. >>>>> >>>>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing >>>>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL! >>>>> >>>>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :) >>>>> >>>>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got >>>>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including >>>>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more >>>>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to >>>>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off >>>>> >>>>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be >>>>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me. >>>> >>>> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the >>>> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send >>>> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts, >>>> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember >>>> what you just did when editing the image. >>> >>> Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again. >> >> Why is that not as easy? > > The answer "because you cannot scan what you cannot see" seems too easy. > Maybe there is a miscommunication somewhere? > What part of "you get to scan it" implies a miscommunication? >> You get to "scan the whole message, including >> the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway, >> five seconds after you have just edited it? > > Why just five seconds and why not scan the image then to make sure it is > what you want? Maybe there is some complexity or assumption in your > question I am not getting? > Why would it be more than five seconds in this "streamlined workflow"? You edit them image and hit reply. Done. If in the seconds before hitting the send button, you forget what you just did to the image, hit "send later" instead and take a look at it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 18:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkfcj9Fkve0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449243 |
On 4/26/18 6:04 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/26/18 4:58 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You do not see it. Not sure what else there is to say. You disagree. OK. >>>>>>>> I am not going to get worked up about it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's where it stands. >>>>>> >>>>>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing >>>>>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL! >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :) >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got >>>>>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including >>>>>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more >>>>>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to >>>>>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off >>>>>> >>>>>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be >>>>>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me. >>>>> >>>>> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the >>>>> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send >>>>> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts, >>>>> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember >>>>> what you just did when editing the image. >>>> >>>> Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again. >>> >>> Why is that not as easy? >> >> The answer "because you cannot scan what you cannot see" seems too easy. >> Maybe there is a miscommunication somewhere? >> > > What part of "you get to scan it" implies a miscommunication? > >>> You get to "scan the whole message, including >>> the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway, >>> five seconds after you have just edited it? >> >> Why just five seconds and why not scan the image then to make sure it is >> what you want? Maybe there is some complexity or assumption in your >> question I am not getting? >> > > Why would it be more than five seconds in this "streamlined workflow"? > You edit them image and hit reply. Done. If in the seconds before > hitting the send button, you forget what you just did to the image, hit > "send later" instead and take a look at it. Not sure you are understanding why it would be important to be able to scan before you send... and why it might be more than five seconds. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 01:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ss80a.zbvuogqa@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449244 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/26/18 6:04 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/26/18 4:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/26/18 4:48 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/26/18, 2:14 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You do not see it. Not sure what else there is to say. You disagree. OK. >>>>>>>>> I am not going to get worked up about it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's where it stands. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OH MY GAWD! You disagree with me about the usefulness of a computing >>>>>>> tool / workflow. DAMN YOU TO HELL! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, maybe not. Whatever. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've fiddled a bit more with it, and got >>>>>>>> the general process itself to work with a "reply" by auto-including >>>>>>>> an attachment. Still not perfect, in that I need to do some more >>>>>>>> investigation to figure out how to pass a proper tmpfile handle to >>>>>>>> a template. Using a hardcoded filename at present: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/QM20e6R?autoplay=off >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cool. When you send it you are not seeing the image that will be >>>>>>> attached. This seems more prone to error to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> You will have just edited the image and seen the result. That is the >>>>>> image that gets sent. You can't see the image in the the reply/send >>>>>> window. But you can put the reply in a "send later" queue, or in drafts, >>>>>> and see the image there before sending, if you really can't remember >>>>>> what you just did when editing the image. >>>>> >>>>> Still, not as easy to scan the whole message, including image, again. >>>> >>>> Why is that not as easy? >>> >>> The answer "because you cannot scan what you cannot see" seems too easy. >>> Maybe there is a miscommunication somewhere? >>> >> >> What part of "you get to scan it" implies a miscommunication? >> >>>> You get to "scan the whole message, including >>>> the image, again." But why do you need to see the image again anyway, >>>> five seconds after you have just edited it? >>> >>> Why just five seconds and why not scan the image then to make sure it is >>> what you want? Maybe there is some complexity or assumption in your >>> question I am not getting? >>> >> >> Why would it be more than five seconds in this "streamlined workflow"? >> You edit them image and hit reply. Done. If in the seconds before >> hitting the send button, you forget what you just did to the image, hit >> "send later" instead and take a look at it. > > Not sure you are understanding why it would be important to be able to > scan before you send... and why it might be more than five seconds. > If you have already hit "reply" but are not planning to hit "send" until later, then the logical thing to do is hit "send later" which puts it in the queue where you also get to see the image in the message body.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 20:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkflbqFmku5U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449246 |
On 4/26/18 6:49 PM, owl wrote: >>> Why would it be more than five seconds in this "streamlined workflow"? >>> You edit them image and hit reply. Done. If in the seconds before >>> hitting the send button, you forget what you just did to the image, hit >>> "send later" instead and take a look at it. >> Not sure you are understanding why it would be important to be able to >> scan before you send... and why it might be more than five seconds. >> > If you have already hit "reply" but are not planning to hit "send" > until later, then the logical thing to do is hit "send later" which > puts it in the queue where you also get to see the image in the message > body. > OK, good that you get to see it then... but what if you get called away or the content is important enough you want to see it all in-line and check it before sending? Based on what you have said I suppose you can hit "Send Later" and look at it there... and then send when ready. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 16:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <s9z0b803a.a@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449253 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/26/18 6:49 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Why would it be more than five seconds in this "streamlined workflow"? >>>> You edit them image and hit reply. Done. If in the seconds before >>>> hitting the send button, you forget what you just did to the image, hit >>>> "send later" instead and take a look at it. >>> Not sure you are understanding why it would be important to be able to >>> scan before you send... and why it might be more than five seconds. >>> >> If you have already hit "reply" but are not planning to hit "send" >> until later, then the logical thing to do is hit "send later" which >> puts it in the queue where you also get to see the image in the message >> body. >> > OK, good that you get to see it then... but what if you get called away > or the content is important enough you want to see it all in-line and > check it before sending? > > Based on what you have said I suppose you can hit "Send Later" and look > at it there... and then send when ready. > Yes, but this hard-coding of the filename is a real problem. It was just a workaround to get the process working for the test, but it breaks things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkh1opF1rh8U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449282 |
On 4/27/18 9:29 AM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/26/18 6:49 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> Why would it be more than five seconds in this "streamlined workflow"? >>>>> You edit them image and hit reply. Done. If in the seconds before >>>>> hitting the send button, you forget what you just did to the image, hit >>>>> "send later" instead and take a look at it. >>>> Not sure you are understanding why it would be important to be able to >>>> scan before you send... and why it might be more than five seconds. >>>> >>> If you have already hit "reply" but are not planning to hit "send" >>> until later, then the logical thing to do is hit "send later" which >>> puts it in the queue where you also get to see the image in the message >>> body. >>> >> OK, good that you get to see it then... but what if you get called away >> or the content is important enough you want to see it all in-line and >> check it before sending? >> >> Based on what you have said I suppose you can hit "Send Later" and look >> at it there... and then send when ready. >> > > Yes, but this hard-coding of the filename is a real problem. It was > just a workaround to get the process working for the test, but it > breaks things. Look forward to seeing what you come up with. Do you know what your overall goal is? What parts of what I have shown are you trying to replicate? What modifications? Or are you just seeing what you can do as you do it? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a8z0b80.a43@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449284 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/18 9:29 AM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/26/18 6:49 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> Why would it be more than five seconds in this "streamlined workflow"? >>>>>> You edit them image and hit reply. Done. If in the seconds before >>>>>> hitting the send button, you forget what you just did to the image, hit >>>>>> "send later" instead and take a look at it. >>>>> Not sure you are understanding why it would be important to be able to >>>>> scan before you send... and why it might be more than five seconds. >>>>> >>>> If you have already hit "reply" but are not planning to hit "send" >>>> until later, then the logical thing to do is hit "send later" which >>>> puts it in the queue where you also get to see the image in the message >>>> body. >>>> >>> OK, good that you get to see it then... but what if you get called away >>> or the content is important enough you want to see it all in-line and >>> check it before sending? >>> >>> Based on what you have said I suppose you can hit "Send Later" and look >>> at it there... and then send when ready. >>> >> >> Yes, but this hard-coding of the filename is a real problem. It was >> just a workaround to get the process working for the test, but it >> breaks things. > > Look forward to seeing what you come up with. Do you know what your > overall goal is? What parts of what I have shown are you trying to > replicate? What modifications? Or are you just seeing what you can do as > you do it? > > I'm probably not going any further with it. I don't see an easy workaround for the fact that templates seem to require a hardcoded filename.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 09:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a736bbe-8be1-40a7-ab66-1d6683a0d433@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449286 |
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 10:42:03 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > On 4/27/18 9:29 AM, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> On 4/26/18 6:49 PM, owl wrote: > >>>>>> Why would it be more than five seconds in this "streamlined workflow"? > >>>>>> You edit them image and hit reply. Done. If in the seconds before > >>>>>> hitting the send button, you forget what you just did to the image, hit > >>>>>> "send later" instead and take a look at it. > >>>>> Not sure you are understanding why it would be important to be able to > >>>>> scan before you send... and why it might be more than five seconds. > >>>>> > >>>> If you have already hit "reply" but are not planning to hit "send" > >>>> until later, then the logical thing to do is hit "send later" which > >>>> puts it in the queue where you also get to see the image in the message > >>>> body. > >>>> > >>> OK, good that you get to see it then... but what if you get called away > >>> or the content is important enough you want to see it all in-line and > >>> check it before sending? > >>> > >>> Based on what you have said I suppose you can hit "Send Later" and look > >>> at it there... and then send when ready. > >>> > >> > >> Yes, but this hard-coding of the filename is a real problem. It was > >> just a workaround to get the process working for the test, but it > >> breaks things. > > > > Look forward to seeing what you come up with. Do you know what your > > overall goal is? What parts of what I have shown are you trying to > > replicate? What modifications? Or are you just seeing what you can do as > > you do it? > > > > > > I'm probably not going any further with it. I don't see an easy > workaround for the fact that templates seem to require a hardcoded > filename. Snit refuses to use the media pleasing handle, you're dumping of the pilot project... things look bad for this series. On the plus side "chrisv" is fighting like hell for a spot... and he can that big donor money from AARP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sazxvb03.a3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449290 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 10:42:03 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> > On 4/27/18 9:29 AM, owl wrote: >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/26/18 6:49 PM, owl wrote: >> >>>>>> Why would it be more than five seconds in this "streamlined workflow"? >> >>>>>> You edit them image and hit reply. Done. If in the seconds before >> >>>>>> hitting the send button, you forget what you just did to the image, hit >> >>>>>> "send later" instead and take a look at it. >> >>>>> Not sure you are understanding why it would be important to be able to >> >>>>> scan before you send... and why it might be more than five seconds. >> >>>>> >> >>>> If you have already hit "reply" but are not planning to hit "send" >> >>>> until later, then the logical thing to do is hit "send later" which >> >>>> puts it in the queue where you also get to see the image in the message >> >>>> body. >> >>>> >> >>> OK, good that you get to see it then... but what if you get called away >> >>> or the content is important enough you want to see it all in-line and >> >>> check it before sending? >> >>> >> >>> Based on what you have said I suppose you can hit "Send Later" and look >> >>> at it there... and then send when ready. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Yes, but this hard-coding of the filename is a real problem. It was >> >> just a workaround to get the process working for the test, but it >> >> breaks things. >> > >> > Look forward to seeing what you come up with. Do you know what your >> > overall goal is? What parts of what I have shown are you trying to >> > replicate? What modifications? Or are you just seeing what you can do as >> > you do it? >> > >> > >> >> I'm probably not going any further with it. I don't see an easy >> workaround for the fact that templates seem to require a hardcoded >> filename. > > Snit refuses to use the media pleasing handle, you're dumping of the > pilot project... things look bad for this series. On the plus side "chrisv" > is fighting like hell for a spot... and he can that big donor money from > AARP. I'll spin it back up for $200/hr.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca6444ab-828e-43b6-9327-04b86d6c0c53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449296 |
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:27:50 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 10:42:03 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> > On 4/27/18 9:29 AM, owl wrote: > >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >>> On 4/26/18 6:49 PM, owl wrote: > >> >>>>>> Why would it be more than five seconds in this "streamlined workflow"? > >> >>>>>> You edit them image and hit reply. Done. If in the seconds before > >> >>>>>> hitting the send button, you forget what you just did to the image, hit > >> >>>>>> "send later" instead and take a look at it. > >> >>>>> Not sure you are understanding why it would be important to be able to > >> >>>>> scan before you send... and why it might be more than five seconds. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> If you have already hit "reply" but are not planning to hit "send" > >> >>>> until later, then the logical thing to do is hit "send later" which > >> >>>> puts it in the queue where you also get to see the image in the message > >> >>>> body. > >> >>>> > >> >>> OK, good that you get to see it then... but what if you get called away > >> >>> or the content is important enough you want to see it all in-line and > >> >>> check it before sending? > >> >>> > >> >>> Based on what you have said I suppose you can hit "Send Later" and look > >> >>> at it there... and then send when ready. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> Yes, but this hard-coding of the filename is a real problem. It was > >> >> just a workaround to get the process working for the test, but it > >> >> breaks things. > >> > > >> > Look forward to seeing what you come up with. Do you know what your > >> > overall goal is? What parts of what I have shown are you trying to > >> > replicate? What modifications? Or are you just seeing what you can do as > >> > you do it? > >> > > >> > > >> > >> I'm probably not going any further with it. I don't see an easy > >> workaround for the fact that templates seem to require a hardcoded > >> filename. > > > > Snit refuses to use the media pleasing handle, you're dumping of the > > pilot project... things look bad for this series. On the plus side "chrisv" > > is fighting like hell for a spot... and he can that big donor money from > > AARP. > > I'll spin it back up for $200/hr. Citing 'American greed' (did I mention the syllable loving lad was Russian?) the sponsor declared the operation stillborn. As compensation for services rendered he's sending a Mack to everyone involved (claimed he got a good deal 'cuz the joint was under water or some such): <https://imgur.com/a/DiBpWiD> Despite his valiant, last minute effort, "chrisv" only gets... <https://imgur.com/a/K3iylpe>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkh3cnF2891U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449286 |
On 4/27/18 9:42 AM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/27/18 9:29 AM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/26/18 6:49 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> Why would it be more than five seconds in this "streamlined workflow"? >>>>>>> You edit them image and hit reply. Done. If in the seconds before >>>>>>> hitting the send button, you forget what you just did to the image, hit >>>>>>> "send later" instead and take a look at it. >>>>>> Not sure you are understanding why it would be important to be able to >>>>>> scan before you send... and why it might be more than five seconds. >>>>>> >>>>> If you have already hit "reply" but are not planning to hit "send" >>>>> until later, then the logical thing to do is hit "send later" which >>>>> puts it in the queue where you also get to see the image in the message >>>>> body. >>>>> >>>> OK, good that you get to see it then... but what if you get called away >>>> or the content is important enough you want to see it all in-line and >>>> check it before sending? >>>> >>>> Based on what you have said I suppose you can hit "Send Later" and look >>>> at it there... and then send when ready. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, but this hard-coding of the filename is a real problem. It was >>> just a workaround to get the process working for the test, but it >>> breaks things. >> >> Look forward to seeing what you come up with. Do you know what your >> overall goal is? What parts of what I have shown are you trying to >> replicate? What modifications? Or are you just seeing what you can do as >> you do it? >> >> > > I'm probably not going any further with it. I don't see an easy > workaround for the fact that templates seem to require a hardcoded > filename. > Fair enough. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 10:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Password protected FTP folders would work. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.27--10.09am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #449286 |
If you're teaching a class, and grading papers, like Michael Glasser, then password protected FTP folders would work; one for the class, one for each student. You could even mount them, as drives, so they're part of your file system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 10:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. |
| Message-ID | <b7cac7f2-05d6-4106-8a4a-254f53a6bd8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449292 |
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:09:46 AM UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > If you're teaching a class, and grading papers, like Michael Glasser, > then password protected FTP folders would work; one for the class, > one for each student. You could even mount them, as drives, > so they're part of your file system. Sure... and then they can grab the plain text passwords of each other as they sit across the table at the coffee shop ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 10:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Students can "collaborate" ( cheat ) using email. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.27--10.25am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #449293 |
> > If you're teaching a class, and grading papers, like Michael Glasser, > > then password protected FTP folders would work; one for the class, > > one for each student. You could even mount them, as drives, > > so they're part of your file system. > > Sure... and then they can grab the plain text passwords of > each other as they sit across the table at the coffee shop ;) Students can "collaborate" ( cheat ) using email; you don't need FTP for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 12:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. |
| Message-ID | <fkhc7gF456nU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449293 |
On 4/27/18 10:18 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:09:46 AM UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> If you're teaching a class, and grading papers, like Michael Glasser, >> then password protected FTP folders would work; one for the class, >> one for each student. You could even mount them, as drives, >> so they're part of your file system. > > Sure... and then they can grab the plain text passwords of > each other as they sit across the table at the coffee shop ;) > In the old days I did use FTP... but later moved to more secure protocols. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 14:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. |
| Message-ID | <2a1b36f6-05a2-4889-9b04-b2ee6cb737f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449301 |
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/27/18 10:18 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:09:46 AM UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >> If you're teaching a class, and grading papers, like Michael Glasser, > >> then password protected FTP folders would work; one for the class, > >> one for each student. You could even mount them, as drives, > >> so they're part of your file system. > > > > Sure... and then they can grab the plain text passwords of > > each other as they sit across the table at the coffee shop ;) > > > In the old days I did use FTP... but later moved to more secure protocols. Same here. Stuff like that and document control are things Linux users seem to think about more often than Mac users (unless they're a dev). You might wanna look at git, at least, locally (very powerful and efficient). At that point it's not that difficult to get github happening, which means you can clone projects and mess around with them. Who knows, you might even see something recipe related there, something with a PDF extension in it's future ;) <https://streamable.com/j16lz> No, I'm not doing it, I just wanted to see how fast Node would write to the drive; I've never done it with multiple files as coming out of an async call. The first thing that happens after I click the page reload is the grabbing of the URLs from the home page (and I filter possible dupes). You can see a pause as the page fetching kicks in.. it fetches and writes so fast, if you looked away for a sec you'd have missed it. I'm sure the speed at which it's shown is actually hampered a bit by the GUI overhead of the editor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 17:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. |
| Message-ID | <fkhto9F7pklU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449306 |
On 4/27/18 2:12 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/27/18 10:18 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:09:46 AM UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >>>> If you're teaching a class, and grading papers, like Michael Glasser, >>>> then password protected FTP folders would work; one for the class, >>>> one for each student. You could even mount them, as drives, >>>> so they're part of your file system. >>> >>> Sure... and then they can grab the plain text passwords of >>> each other as they sit across the table at the coffee shop ;) >>> >> In the old days I did use FTP... but later moved to more secure protocols. > > Same here. Stuff like that and document control are things Linux users > seem to think about more often than Mac users (unless they're a dev). In my case the college I was teaching for only supported FTP. I pushed them to move to SFTP and they finally did. > You might wanna look at git, at least, locally (very powerful and efficient). > At that point it's not that difficult to get github happening, which means > you can clone projects and mess around with them. Who knows, you > might even see something recipe related there, something with a PDF > extension in it's future ;) <https://streamable.com/j16lz> LOL! Excellent. > No, I'm not doing it, I just wanted to see how fast Node would write to the > drive; I've never done it with multiple files as coming out of an async call. > The first thing that happens after I click the page reload is the grabbing of > the URLs from the home page (and I filter possible dupes). You can see a > pause as the page fetching kicks in.. it fetches and writes so fast, if you > looked away for a sec you'd have missed it. I'm sure the speed at which > it's shown is actually hampered a bit by the GUI overhead of the editor. Presumably, sure. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 18:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. |
| Message-ID | <8f1fb0ab-2897-4ced-af61-d8a9be64bf79@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449322 |
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:32:12 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/27/18 2:12 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 4/27/18 10:18 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:09:46 AM UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >>>> If you're teaching a class, and grading papers, like Michael Glasser, > >>>> then password protected FTP folders would work; one for the class, > >>>> one for each student. You could even mount them, as drives, > >>>> so they're part of your file system. > >>> > >>> Sure... and then they can grab the plain text passwords of > >>> each other as they sit across the table at the coffee shop ;) > >>> > >> In the old days I did use FTP... but later moved to more secure protocols. > > > > Same here. Stuff like that and document control are things Linux users > > seem to think about more often than Mac users (unless they're a dev). That anyone had to be 'pushed' to move away FTP is a really scary thought. > In my case the college I was teaching for only supported FTP. I pushed > them to move to SFTP and they finally did. > > > You might wanna look at git, at least, locally (very powerful and efficient). > > At that point it's not that difficult to get github happening, which means > > you can clone projects and mess around with them. Who knows, you > > might even see something recipe related there, something with a PDF > > extension in it's future ;) <https://streamable.com/j16lz> > > LOL! Excellent. The code is utter garbage from an organizational standpoint but it shows the speed of Node... which was the thing I was trying to show.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 18:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. |
| Message-ID | <fki25gF8m4iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449327 |
On 4/27/18 6:32 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:32:12 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 4/27/18 2:12 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 4/27/18 10:18 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:09:46 AM UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >>>>>> If you're teaching a class, and grading papers, like Michael Glasser, >>>>>> then password protected FTP folders would work; one for the class, >>>>>> one for each student. You could even mount them, as drives, >>>>>> so they're part of your file system. >>>>> >>>>> Sure... and then they can grab the plain text passwords of >>>>> each other as they sit across the table at the coffee shop ;) >>>>> >>>> In the old days I did use FTP... but later moved to more secure protocols. >>> >>> Same here. Stuff like that and document control are things Linux users >>> seem to think about more often than Mac users (unless they're a dev). > > That anyone had to be 'pushed' to move away FTP is a really scary thought. Hardly the worst I have seen. At another university I was teaching an intro computer class where they were discussing search engines... wwww, Yahoo, etc. but NOT Google. The material was too old to include it. This was in, I think, 2012 or so. I had to fight to get them to let me update the materials -- they finally had another instructor teaching a different section and I rewrite the full class. We got paid almost nothing for that but at least I could teach it with a clean conscience. That university did, a few years later, drop that program. I think that is for the best for everyone! >> In my case the college I was teaching for only supported FTP. I pushed >> them to move to SFTP and they finally did. >> >>> You might wanna look at git, at least, locally (very powerful and efficient). >>> At that point it's not that difficult to get github happening, which means >>> you can clone projects and mess around with them. Who knows, you >>> might even see something recipe related there, something with a PDF >>> extension in it's future ;) <https://streamable.com/j16lz> >> >> LOL! Excellent. > > The code is utter garbage from an organizational standpoint but it shows > the speed of Node... which was the thing I was trying to show. Fair enough... and I am used to garbage code -- it is my specialty. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 09:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Password protected FTP folders would work. |
| Message-ID | <b77bc8db-88a6-4674-8df5-70b643384dda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449329 |
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 7:47:32 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/27/18 6:32 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:32:12 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 4/27/18 2:12 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:33:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 4/27/18 10:18 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:09:46 AM UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >>>>>> If you're teaching a class, and grading papers, like Michael Glasser, > >>>>>> then password protected FTP folders would work; one for the class, > >>>>>> one for each student. You could even mount them, as drives, > >>>>>> so they're part of your file system. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sure... and then they can grab the plain text passwords of > >>>>> each other as they sit across the table at the coffee shop ;) > >>>>> > >>>> In the old days I did use FTP... but later moved to more secure protocols. > >>> > >>> Same here. Stuff like that and document control are things Linux users > >>> seem to think about more often than Mac users (unless they're a dev). > > > > That anyone had to be 'pushed' to move away FTP is a really scary thought. > > Hardly the worst I have seen. At another university I was teaching an > intro computer class where they were discussing search engines... wwww, > Yahoo, etc. but NOT Google. The material was too old to include it. This > was in, I think, 2012 or so. > > I had to fight to get them to let me update the materials -- they > finally had another instructor teaching a different section and I > rewrite the full class. We got paid almost nothing for that but at least > I could teach it with a clean conscience. > > That university did, a few years later, drop that program. I think that > is for the best for everyone! The reasons that these coding bootcamps have done as well as they have don't all have to do with marketing BS. Of the ones that have survived the bootcamp wars, most of them are able to adapt to the shifting sands far better than the more traditional (overly bureaucratic) school setting. > >> In my case the college I was teaching for only supported FTP. I pushed > >> them to move to SFTP and they finally did. > >> > >>> You might wanna look at git, at least, locally (very powerful and efficient). > >>> At that point it's not that difficult to get github happening, which means > >>> you can clone projects and mess around with them. Who knows, you > >>> might even see something recipe related there, something with a PDF > >>> extension in it's future ;) <https://streamable.com/j16lz> > >> > >> LOL! Excellent. > > > > The code is utter garbage from an organizational standpoint but it shows > > the speed of Node... which was the thing I was trying to show. > > Fair enough... and I am used to garbage code -- it is my specialty. :) Do you know why that code is screwy (aside from some hardcoding)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web