On 05/06/2010 9:36 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:27:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 05/06/2010 9:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:48:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Was.
>>>
>>> Not. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Was too!
>
> Nope. ;-)
>

Yup!

>> I get marched to bed by my ear with the threat of taking snips to the
>> mains cable.
>
> LOL; she knew I had a new toy to play with, so knew what to expect.  She
> also benefits, because her access to the net is more reliable, so there's
> some self-interest in play as well. :-)
>

:-D

>>>
>> Go for it!
>
> Probably later; I've got some movies to watch and Doctor Who should be
> ready for me to watch in a couple hours.
>

Yeah routers for breakfast is over doing it. :-)

>> If the men in white coats don't come for you soon I'll phone again. ;-)
>
> LOL; they may be looking for Laura Chappell - it's the sort of thing
> she'd think was pretty geeky (you probably don't know who I'm talking
> about, thinking about it - she founded the Protocol Analysis Institute
> and Wireshark Univeristy; used to work for Novell, where she worked on
> packet analysis tools.  One of the best presenters I've ever seen, and
> when it comes to low-level network traffic analysis, she *is* without a
> doubt the best in the industry).
>

Waaa!!!

La la la la la.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:08:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> Nope. ;-)
>>
> Yup!

You're being awfully stubborn about this. ;-)

>> LOL; she knew I had a new toy to play with, so knew what to expect. 
>> She also benefits, because her access to the net is more reliable, so
>> there's some self-interest in play as well. :-)
>>
> :-D

And everything worked great until I discovered it was running under too 
heavy of a system load to stream to the PS3.  Sorted, but that was 
annoying - means I can't gather the utilisation stats I wanted.

>> Probably later; I've got some movies to watch and Doctor Who should be
>> ready for me to watch in a couple hours.
>>
> Yeah routers for breakfast is over doing it. :-)

LOL

>>> If the men in white coats don't come for you soon I'll phone again.
>>> ;-)
>>
>> LOL; they may be looking for Laura Chappell - it's the sort of thing
>> she'd think was pretty geeky (you probably don't know who I'm talking
>> about, thinking about it - she founded the Protocol Analysis Institute
>> and Wireshark Univeristy; used to work for Novell, where she worked on
>> packet analysis tools.  One of the best presenters I've ever seen, and
>> when it comes to low-level network traffic analysis, she *is* without a
>> doubt the best in the industry).
>>
>>
> Waaa!!!
> 
> La la la la la.

That's what a lot of people say when she gets up to present. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 06/04/10 13:16, andrel wrote:
>> Comming back from a conference and subsequent stay in a monastery in
>> Greece only to find a discussion on firefighters intelligence and UK vs
>> US intelligence.
>> Lets combine these two: any test that shows US persons are on average
>> more intelligent than UK ones is inherently racist.
> 
> 	Well, no. It would be nationalistic.
> 

Wait, there is a difference? The media has been lying to me!


--
Yes, I am aware that this post should have asbestos armor.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2010 4:17 AM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

>> 	Well, no. It would be nationalistic.
>>
>
> Wait, there is a difference? The media has been lying to me!
>
>

It's their job ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2010 3:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:08:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Nope. ;-)
>>>
>> Yup!
>
> You're being awfully stubborn about this. ;-)
>

Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P



-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 08:48:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/06/2010 3:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:08:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope. ;-)
>>>>
>>> Yup!
>>
>> You're being awfully stubborn about this. ;-)
>>
>>
> Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P

That's awfully agreeable of you. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2010 5:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 08:48:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2010 3:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:08:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nope. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Yup!
>>>
>>> You're being awfully stubborn about this. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P
>
> That's awfully agreeable of you. ;-)
>

Is it? I don't think so ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:39:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P
>>
>> That's awfully agreeable of you. ;-)
>>
>>
> Is it? I don't think so ;-)

But you did say "Yup" did you not? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2010 7:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:39:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P
>>>
>>> That's awfully agreeable of you. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Is it? I don't think so ;-)
>
> But you did say "Yup" did you not? ;-)
>

Ja! But that was then.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 19:56:17 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/06/2010 7:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:39:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P
>>>>
>>>> That's awfully agreeable of you. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Is it? I don't think so ;-)
>>
>> But you did say "Yup" did you not? ;-)
>>
>>
> Ja! But that was then.

But I see you being agreeable now, too.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message