Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #8738 > unrolled thread

Google Feed

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Contents

  Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-03-29 10:34 -0700
    Re: Google Feed Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2012-03-29 11:28 -0700
      Re: Google Feed nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2012-03-29 11:52 -0700
        Re: Google Feed Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-03-29 21:19 -0400
      Re: Google Feed PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-29 16:44 -0400
        Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-30 08:38 +1100
          Re: Google Feed PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-29 22:03 -0400
            Re: Google Feed Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2012-03-30 03:48 +0000
              Re: Google Feed PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-30 09:07 -0400
                Re: Google Feed Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2012-03-30 20:19 +0000
                  Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-31 09:08 +1100
                    Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-03-30 18:08 -0700
                      Re: Google Feed *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-30 22:53 -0400
                        Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-31 14:06 +1100
        Re: Google Feed *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-30 19:19 -0500
    Re: Google Feed Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-29 20:49 +0200
      Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-03-29 13:59 -0700
        Re: Google Feed dog_cow@macgui.com (D Finnigan) - 2012-03-29 23:08 +0000
        Re: Google Feed PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-29 21:55 -0400
          Re: Google Feed *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-30 19:06 -0500
            Re: Google Feed Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-31 09:17 +0200
              Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-03-31 21:18 -0700
                Re: Google Feed Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-01 14:46 +0200
    Re: Google Feed *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-30 20:28 -0400
    Re: Google Feed Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz@gmail.com> - 2012-03-29 13:01 -0700
      Re: Google Feed dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2012-04-03 12:30 +1200
        Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-02 21:40 -0700
          Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-03 18:21 +1000
            Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-03 07:08 -0700
              Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-04 04:52 +1000
                Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-03 12:59 -0700
                  Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-04 08:50 +1000
                    Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-03 16:59 -0700
                      Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-04 10:59 +1000
                        Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-03 22:02 -0700
                          Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-04 16:40 +1000
                            Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-04 07:11 -0700
                              Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-05 03:50 +1000
        Re: Google Feed Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-03 14:38 +0200
    Re: Google Feed dog_cow@macgui.com (D Finnigan) - 2012-04-02 23:31 +0000
      Re: Google Feed PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-04-02 22:42 -0400
      Re: Google Feed jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-04-03 16:18 +1200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#8795

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:06:22 -0500, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> There are good people who use Google Groups and blocking it altogether
> might block decent stuff from getting through. Killfiling individuals or
> threads would be the option I'd take.

Yes.  I filter out GG posts on the comp.sys.mac.* newsgroups but another 
technical newsgroup I read has a lot of contributors who post from locked 
down corporate systems, and GG is their only option, so I allow GG posts 
there.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8816

On 2012-03-31 07:17:49 +0000, Paul Sture said:

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:06:22 -0500, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> 
>> There are good people who use Google Groups and blocking it altogether
>> might block decent stuff from getting through. Killfiling individuals or
>> threads would be the option I'd take.
> 
> Yes.  I filter out GG posts on the comp.sys.mac.* newsgroups but another
> technical newsgroup I read has a lot of contributors who post from locked
> down corporate systems, and GG is their only option, so I allow GG posts
> there.

Allow them real good: but you're not going to get them without going to 
google's stinking website.
-- 
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. 
-- Galileo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8821

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:18:35 -0700, gtr wrote:

> On 2012-03-31 07:17:49 +0000, Paul Sture said:
> 
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:06:22 -0500, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> 
>>> There are good people who use Google Groups and blocking it altogether
>>> might block decent stuff from getting through. Killfiling individuals
>>> or threads would be the option I'd take.
>> 
>> Yes.  I filter out GG posts on the comp.sys.mac.* newsgroups but
>> another technical newsgroup I read has a lot of contributors who post
>> from locked down corporate systems, and GG is their only option, so I
>> allow GG posts there.
> 
> Allow them real good: but you're not going to get them without going to
> google's stinking website.

Then I might have to find another venue ;.)

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8780

On 03/29/2012 01:34 PM, gtr wrote:
> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their incoming
> posts to usenet?

Not sure if this is the case, but it wouldn't be the first time Gurgle 
Groups had an issue. It's best to use a real server and reader combo as 
it looks like you are doing right now. But problems with Gurgle Groups 
can reduce the flow to a newsgroup quite significantly, which can be a 
good or bad thing, depending on the users affected.

But I've had experience with a moderated newsgroup being down for some 
time due to some server or network issue. Moderation is cool for obvious 
reasons, but it has the downside of care and nurturing of the server 
that houses the bot or whether the moderator decides taking a vacation 
with family is more important than evaluating incoming posts. Moderation 
is a saintly and often thankless task.

-- 
*Hemidactylus*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8845

On Mar 30, 4:34 am, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their
> incoming posts to usenet?

Does that mean you no longer can get posts like this?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8848

Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 30, 4:34 am, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their
> > incoming posts to usenet?
> 
> Does that mean you no longer can get posts like this?

Not when you posted it, but it appears that the problem is fixed now
(about four days later).

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8853

On 2012-04-03 00:30:58 +0000, David Empson said:

> Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 30, 4:34 am, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their
>>> incoming posts to usenet?
>> 
>> Does that mean you no longer can get posts like this?
> 
> Not when you posted it, but it appears that the problem is fixed now
> (about four days later).

Went down Wednesday evening.  That's the longest stretch of 
incompetence that I know of.
-- 
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. 
-- Galileo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8855

In article <2012040221405553527-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2012-04-03 00:30:58 +0000, David Empson said:
> 
> > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mar 30, 4:34 am, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> >>> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their
> >>> incoming posts to usenet?
> >> 
> >> Does that mean you no longer can get posts like this?
> > 
> > Not when you posted it, but it appears that the problem is fixed now
> > (about four days later).
> 
> Went down Wednesday evening.  That's the longest stretch of 
> incompetence that I know of.

How sure are you that it is incompetence? It is a big thing they are 
doing, why would it not be just very difficult to have it running 
perfectly all the time?

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8859

On 2012-04-03 08:21:09 +0000, dorayme said:

> In article <2012040221405553527-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> On 2012-04-03 00:30:58 +0000, David Empson said:
>> 
>>> Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 30, 4:34 am, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>>> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their
>>>>> incoming posts to usenet?
>>>> 
>>>> Does that mean you no longer can get posts like this?
>>> 
>>> Not when you posted it, but it appears that the problem is fixed now
>>> (about four days later).
>> 
>> Went down Wednesday evening.  That's the longest stretch of
>> incompetence that I know of.
> 
> How sure are you that it is incompetence? It is a big thing they are
> doing, why would it not be just very difficult to have it running
> perfectly all the time?

I suppose it's a question of how you define incompetence.  If it's a 
hard job then failing at it may not be considered failing either, but 
triumph.
-- 
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. 
-- Galileo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8863

In article <2012040307085864273-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2012-04-03 08:21:09 +0000, dorayme said:
> 
...
> >> 
> >> Went down Wednesday evening.  That's the longest stretch of
> >> incompetence that I know of.
> > 
> > How sure are you that it is incompetence? It is a big thing they are
> > doing, why would it not be just very difficult to have it running
> > perfectly all the time?
> 
> I suppose it's a question of how you define incompetence.  If it's a 
> hard job then failing at it may not be considered failing either, but 
> triumph.

No question that failure is the right description of what happened, 
the question of incompetence is different. If big things are attempted 
it just might be that the price of a measure of success is a measure 
of failure. Some things are worth doing in spite of being impossible 
to guarantee. A space shuttle disaster, for example, was not 
necessarily NASA incompetence (though there may have been 
incompetences by individuals).

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8865

On 2012-04-03 18:52:03 +0000, dorayme said:

>>>> Went down Wednesday evening.  That's the longest stretch of
>>>> incompetence that I know of.
>>> 
>>> How sure are you that it is incompetence? It is a big thing they are
>>> doing, why would it not be just very difficult to have it running
>>> perfectly all the time?
>> 
>> I suppose it's a question of how you define incompetence.  If it's a
>> hard job then failing at it may not be considered failing either, but
>> triumph.
> 
> No question that failure is the right description of what happened,
> the question of incompetence is different. If big things are attempted
> it just might be that the price of a measure of success is a measure
> of failure.

Good one! Sure your village was burned but it was a triumph of 
producing a fire-line.  The fact that we didn't inform your village 
beforehand was a triumph of PR.  Something like that?

> Some things are worth doing in spite of being impossible
> to guarantee. A space shuttle disaster, for example, was not
> necessarily NASA incompetence (though there may have been
> incompetences by individuals).

If you're divorcing competence of individuals from the entire 
corporation, I can see you have another winning argument. In this case 
the google screw-up may have been the result of incompetence only by 
one or two individual programmers, or in their manager, or in his/her 
manager or in the division head. Or perhaps all of them, maye a total 
of 8 people. As such, it would be "not necessarily incompetence, since 
only "individuals" were involved.

Their lack of informing users of  A) Their knowledge of the situation, 
B) Their eventual intent to "correct" it, C) That this was a new policy 
of isolating google-groups from usenet and therefore not to be 
corrected; avoiding providing any such information may have been a 
conscious decision to avoid "frightening" us (see burned village 
above). I'm sure that can be positioned as something other than cserv 
incompetence too.

It's really just about what the word "incompetence" might bean to you, 
today, regarding one google situation.  One dictionary definition to 
refashion for the purpose would be this one: The inability to do 
something successfully; ineptitude.
-- 
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. 
-- Galileo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8868

In article <2012040312592851999-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2012-04-03 18:52:03 +0000, dorayme said:
> 
> >>>> Went down Wednesday evening.  That's the longest stretch of
> >>>> incompetence that I know of.
> >>> 
> >>> How sure are you that it is incompetence? It is a big thing they are
> >>> doing, why would it not be just very difficult to have it running
> >>> perfectly all the time?
> >> 
> >> I suppose it's a question of how you define incompetence.  If it's a
> >> hard job then failing at it may not be considered failing either, but
> >> triumph.
> > 
> > No question that failure is the right description of what happened,
> > the question of incompetence is different. If big things are attempted
> > it just might be that the price of a measure of success is a measure
> > of failure.
> 
> Good one! Sure your village was burned but it was a triumph of 
> producing a fire-line.  The fact that we didn't inform your village 
> beforehand was a triumph of PR.  Something like that?
>

No, nothing like that. My point was a much less radical one. It was a 
question with an explanation to help guide a competent answer. It was 
not an invitation for you to rant and rave with bitterness and sarcasm
 
> > Some things are worth doing in spite of being impossible
> > to guarantee. A space shuttle disaster, for example, was not
> > necessarily NASA incompetence (though there may have been
> > incompetences by individuals).
> 
> If you're divorcing competence of individuals from the entire 
> corporation, I can see you have another winning argument. 


Well, since I am not doing that, your speculative consequent does not 
apply. 

It is certainly a sight to see you snorting with contempt and dripping 
with sarcasm at a well-meant *question* of mine.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8869

On 2012-04-03 22:50:38 +0000, dorayme said:

> In article <2012040312592851999-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> On 2012-04-03 18:52:03 +0000, dorayme said:
>> 
>>>>>> Went down Wednesday evening.  That's the longest stretch of
>>>>>> incompetence that I know of.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How sure are you that it is incompetence? It is a big thing they are
>>>>> doing, why would it not be just very difficult to have it running
>>>>> perfectly all the time?
>>>> 
>>>> I suppose it's a question of how you define incompetence.  If it's a
>>>> hard job then failing at it may not be considered failing either, but
>>>> triumph.
>>> 
>>> No question that failure is the right description of what happened,
>>> the question of incompetence is different. If big things are attempted
>>> it just might be that the price of a measure of success is a measure
>>> of failure.
>> 
>> Good one! Sure your village was burned but it was a triumph of
>> producing a fire-line.  The fact that we didn't inform your village
>> beforehand was a triumph of PR.  Something like that?
> 
> No, nothing like that. My point was a much less radical one. It was a
> question with an explanation to help guide a competent answer. It was
> not an invitation for you to rant and rave with bitterness and sarcasm

Ranting? Raving? Bitterness and sarcasm? Sheesh--I thought it was a 
pretty good way of giving you a "painful success" scenario that worked: 
Mine example was painful, it wasn't incompetent failure but a success. 
In the case of Google we'd have to know what the "someting big" was and 
how it coule be measured as successful in "failure" terms.

>>> Some things are worth doing in spite of being impossible
>>> to guarantee. A space shuttle disaster, for example, was not
>>> necessarily NASA incompetence (though there may have been
>>> incompetences by individuals).
>> 
>> If you're divorcing competence of individuals from the entire
>> corporation, I can see you have another winning argument.
> 
> Well, since I am not doing that, your speculative consequent does not
> apply.

You picked the example! The example was flawed: NASA wasn't 
incompetent, but an "individual" might have been.

> It is certainly a sight to see you snorting with contempt and dripping
> with sarcasm at a well-meant *question* of mine.

Snorting, dripping with sarcasm? I simply countered your examples with 
others that highlighted what I saw as a failure of logic, and the vague 
meaning of the word "incompetence".

It's always difficult to debate a point when one's "attitude" or 
literary "tone" becomes the key topic.
-- 
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. 
-- Galileo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8873

In article <2012040316593274304-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2012-04-03 22:50:38 +0000, dorayme said:
> 
> > In article <2012040312592851999-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2012-04-03 18:52:03 +0000, dorayme said:
> >> 
> >>>>>> Went down Wednesday evening.  That's the longest stretch of
> >>>>>> incompetence that I know of.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> How sure are you that it is incompetence? It is a big thing they are
> >>>>> doing, why would it not be just very difficult to have it running
> >>>>> perfectly all the time?
> >>>> 
> >>>> I suppose it's a question of how you define incompetence.  If it's a
> >>>> hard job then failing at it may not be considered failing either, but
> >>>> triumph.
> >>>

Whatever do you mean? If it is a hard job and it fails then how can it 
be a triumph in that respect alone? Perhaps you are being hyperbolic 
in some way. <g>

 
> >>> No question that failure is the right description of what happened,
> >>> the question of incompetence is different. If big things are attempted
> >>> it just might be that the price of a measure of success is a measure
> >>> of failure.
> >> 
> >> Good one! Sure your village was burned but it was a triumph of
> >> producing a fire-line.  The fact that we didn't inform your village
> >> beforehand was a triumph of PR.  Something like that?
> > 
> > No, nothing like that. My point was a much less radical one. It was a
> > question with an explanation to help guide a competent answer. It was
> > not an invitation for you to rant and rave with bitterness and sarcasm
> 
> Ranting? Raving? Bitterness and sarcasm? Sheesh--I thought it was a 
> pretty good way of giving you a "painful success" scenario that worked: 
> Mine example was painful, it wasn't incompetent failure but a success. 
> In the case of Google we'd have to know what the "someting big" was and 
> how it coule be measured as successful in "failure" terms.
> 

OK, look, why not simply carefully read my original question "How sure 
are you that it is incompetence? And give the evidence in a plain way! 
There is no need to be Mr. or Mrs. Personality around here. I will 
take care of that stuff. 

You actually started to indicate some evidence (about them knowing 
about the problem and not telling folk and so on, I have no idea if 
you are right) and that is fine, maybe you are right the organization 
behind GG is incompetent. It would not completely surprise me. But 
what have we done big and free and useful to so many that we should be 
so strident in criticism?


> >>> Some things are worth doing in spite of being impossible
> >>> to guarantee. A space shuttle disaster, for example, was not
> >>> necessarily NASA incompetence (though there may have been
> >>> incompetences by individuals).
> >> 
> >> If you're divorcing competence of individuals from the entire
> >> corporation, I can see you have another winning argument.
> > 
> > Well, since I am not doing that, your speculative consequent does not
> > apply.
> 
> You picked the example! The example was flawed: NASA wasn't 
> incompetent, but an "individual" might have been.
>

The example was not the least bit flawed. At least not in the way you 
think. It illustrated something I was illustrating, not something to 
win competence for GG all on its lonesome.
 
> > It is certainly a sight to see you snorting with contempt and dripping
> > with sarcasm at a well-meant *question* of mine.
> 
> Snorting, dripping with sarcasm? I simply countered your examples with 
> others that highlighted what I saw as a failure of logic, and the vague 
> meaning of the word "incompetence".
>
 
You did not *just* do this, Mr. Innocent.
 
> It's always difficult to debate a point when one's "attitude" or 
> literary "tone" becomes the key topic.

That's funny! I thought that was my complaint.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8883

On 2012-04-04 00:59:06 +0000, dorayme said:

>> You picked the example! The example was flawed: NASA wasn't
>> incompetent, but an "individual" might have been.
> 
> The example was not the least bit flawed. At least not in the way you
> think.

I see: I may have been right but not in the right kind of right. It 
reminds me of "The Sunshine Boys" where Walter Mathau tries to assert 
that the door is open on George Burn's side but on his own side, which 
remains locked.

> It illustrated something I was illustrating, not something to
> win competence for GG all on its lonesome.

I can no longer follow you.  Wherever I chase your words, your ideas 
disappear. A guess: You seem greatly aggravated that google was 
criticized with the word "incompetence".  I think they were 
incompetent; their system went down and there was no trace of 
explanation for 5 days. Then it worked again. We still don't know 
anything about it. They don't really give a shit about google-groups.  
That's my conclusion. Outage shmoutage, they're all on facebook, who 
cares?

I assume you disagree with every sentence in the above paragraph. God 
knows I've had 10 and 20 message exchanges on what one word *really* 
means many times before on usenet. But as I age I find this too has 
lost its entertainment value.

When it really was about words it seemed worthwhile.  When it's about 
points on some abstract tote-board, it wearies.

>>>  It is certainly a sight to see you snorting with contempt and dripping
>>> with sarcasm at a well-meant *question* of mine.
>> 
>> Snorting, dripping with sarcasm? I simply countered your examples with
>> others that highlighted what I saw as a failure of logic, and the vague
>> meaning of the word "incompetence".
>> 
> 
> You did not *just* do this, Mr. Innocent.

No, I'm sure my crimes are many. Mr Innocent now concludes all 
discussion of himself in lieu of google, incompetence and other mundane 
topics.

>> It's always difficult to debate a point when one's "attitude" or
>> literary "tone" becomes the key topic.
> 
> That's funny! I thought that was my complaint.

You, me, the other guy; I can't follow the players anymore.
-- 
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. 
-- Galileo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8884

In article <2012040322023762135-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2012-04-04 00:59:06 +0000, dorayme said:
> 
> >> You picked the example! The example was flawed: NASA wasn't
> >> incompetent, but an "individual" might have been.
> > 
> > The example was not the least bit flawed. At least not in the way you
> > think.
> 
> I see: I may have been right but not in the right kind of right. It 
> reminds me of "The Sunshine Boys" where Walter Mathau tries to assert 
> that the door is open on George Burn's side but on his own side, which 
> remains locked.
> 
 
I find this hard to parse. It is really quite simple and it is not 
some silly thing about words. 

> > It illustrated something I was illustrating, not something to
> > win competence for GG all on its lonesome.
> 
> I can no longer follow you.  Wherever I chase your words, your ideas 
> disappear. A guess: You seem greatly aggravated that google was 
> criticized with the word "incompetence". 

Not at all. You said they were incompetent. I asked are you sure and 
was therefore inviting you to give some evidence. I tried to help by 
making an important distinction between mistakes, disasters, cock-ups 
by big organizations doing big things and incompetence. What is there 
to follow *at this point*? It is a simple basic point. Your reaction 
to my modest question even startled my pet wild boar, he went off and 
killed 5 dogs, 2 cats and flattened a dunny, a wooden shed and made a 
huge dent in my car.

A war machine is not incompetent because it suffers setbacks or 
handles some setbacks badly, sometimes some things are so big that the 
ball needs to be dropped now and again for the greater good. 


>  I think they were 
> incompetent; their system went down and there was no trace of 
> explanation for 5 days. Then it worked again. We still don't know 
> anything about it. They don't really give a shit about google-groups.  
> That's my conclusion. Outage shmoutage, they're all on facebook, who 
> cares?
>
 
Maybe you are right, but I am not particularly convinced. That they 
fixed it maybe shows they care deeply, maybe they are deeply 
embarrassed, maybe all the techs there are very sensitive folk and 
find it hard to face up to such embarrassments and have gone off to 
drink themselves silly, or gone to see therapists. Maybe there are 
other theories that fit the facts as well as yours that the org is 
just incompetent?

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8890

On 2012-04-04 06:40:14 +0000, dorayme said:

>> I think they were incompetent; their system went down and there was no 
>> trace of explanation for 5 days. Then it worked again. We still don't 
>> know anything about it. They don't really give a shit about 
>> google-groups. That's my conclusion. Outage shmoutage, they're all on 
>> facebook, who cares?
> 
> Maybe you are right, but I am not particularly convinced. That they
> fixed it maybe shows they care deeply, maybe they are deeply
> embarrassed, maybe all the techs there are very sensitive folk and
> find it hard to face up to such embarrassments and have gone off to
> drink themselves silly, or gone to see therapists.

That maybe would evidence a deeply unprofessional response to a 
business situtation.

> Maybe there are other theories that fit the facts as well as yours that 
> the org is
> just incompetent?

There are likely enough maybes to fill an ocean. I just gave my 
viewpoint that one group's response to one screw-up was incompetent. 
It's not really a grand unifiying theory on google.
-- 
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. 
-- Galileo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8893

In article <2012040407115055332-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2012-04-04 06:40:14 +0000, dorayme said:
> 
> > Maybe there are other theories that fit the facts as well as yours that 
> > the org is just incompetent?
> 
> There are likely enough maybes to fill an ocean. I just gave my 
> viewpoint that one group's response to one screw-up was incompetent. 
> It's not really a grand unifiying theory on google.

Fair enough. 

I look at this way, it's a free service. There is a lot that is good 
and right and useful for a great many people. It is probably hard to 
maintain well and they don't do a bad job of it on the whole. The idea 
that they are incompetent goes against this and I would be more 
inclined to a more localised wrap on the knuckles.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8858

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:30:58 +1200, David Empson wrote:

> Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 30, 4:34 am, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>> > So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their
>> > incoming posts to usenet?
>> 
>> Does that mean you no longer can get posts like this?
> 
> Not when you posted it, but it appears that the problem is fixed now
> (about four days later).

Same here.  I just looked at the newsgroup where I allow Google posts and 
was rewarded with some posts from Sunday and Monday.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8847

gtr wrote:
> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their 
> incoming posts to usenet?
>

Appears to be resolved as of about 2 hours ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web