I don't know where the conversation is now, and it'd take too much time 
to find it.  But in relation to the discussion about textbook issues in 
the US, you asserted a generalisation that "all people in the US are 
stupid" (or something to that effect).

The defense presents exhibit A:

http://notalwaysright.com/big-bother/5677

What's your interpretation of the intelligence of people in the UK based 
on this? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 03/06/2010 6:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The defense presents exhibit A:
>
> http://notalwaysright.com/big-bother/5677
>
> What's your interpretation of the intelligence of people in the UK based
> on this?;-)
>

I don’t know if I believe the script but anyone who says that *all* 
Americans/Welsh/Jocks/… are stupid is talking about himself.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> The defense presents exhibit A:
> 
> http://notalwaysright.com/big-bother/5677
> 
> What's your interpretation of the intelligence of people in the UK based 
> on this? ;-)

Pfaaahahahaha!

Yes, there are unfortunately a number of people in this country who 
would, in fact, do something that dumb. (I don't know if this is true of 
other countries, but it is true of the UK.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> I don’t know if I believe the script but anyone who says that *all* 
> Americans/Welsh/Jocks/… are stupid is talking about himself.

How about "most" then?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:54:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 03/06/2010 6:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The defense presents exhibit A:
>>
>> http://notalwaysright.com/big-bother/5677
>>
>> What's your interpretation of the intelligence of people in the UK
>> based on this?;-)
>>
>>
> I don’t know if I believe the script but anyone who says that *all*
> Americans/Welsh/Jocks/… are stupid is talking about himself.

Well, yeah, I don't know that I believe the script either, but then 
again, we have all kinds (in both countries <g>).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:17:14 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> The defense presents exhibit A:
>> 
>> http://notalwaysright.com/big-bother/5677
>> 
>> What's your interpretation of the intelligence of people in the UK
>> based on this? ;-)
> 
> Pfaaahahahaha!
> 
> Yes, there are unfortunately a number of people in this country who
> would, in fact, do something that dumb. (I don't know if this is true of
> other countries, but it is true of the UK.)

Well, yes, but my point is that one (or even "a number") does not equate 
in any way to "all".  IOW, my point was about making generalisations with 
such a broad brush as to exclude the fact that for a given population, 
there are going to be some not-so-smart people and some incredibly smart 
people, and that some people who are not so smart will get into positions 
where their lack of intelligence will be made really apparent.

That doesn't mean everyone in that country is dumb, which was the 
generalisation you were making. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

http://notalwaysright.com/faux-bi-wan-kenobi/3138
http://notalwaysright.com/in-desperate-need-of-a-cellphone/3910
^ didn't know you could do that.


--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:33:21 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:

> http://notalwaysright.com/faux-bi-wan-kenobi/3138
> http://notalwaysright.com/in-desperate-need-of-a-cellphone/3910 ^ didn't
> know you could do that.

It's a fun site, that's for sure. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 03/06/2010 7:17 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> I don’t know if I believe the script but anyone who says that *all*
>> Americans/Welsh/Jocks/… are stupid is talking about himself.
>
> How about "most" then?
>
Getting better but "some" would be even better.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/06/2010 7:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:54:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2010 6:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> The defense presents exhibit A:
>>>
>>> http://notalwaysright.com/big-bother/5677
>>>
>>> What's your interpretation of the intelligence of people in the UK
>>> based on this?;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I don’t know if I believe the script but anyone who says that *all*
>> Americans/Welsh/Jocks/… are stupid is talking about himself.
>
> Well, yeah, I don't know that I believe the script either, but then
> again, we have all kinds (in both countries<g>).
>

You won't get an argument from me on that.


Unless you really want one. :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:08:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 03/06/2010 7:17 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I don’t know if I believe the script but anyone who says that *all*
>>> Americans/Welsh/Jocks/… are stupid is talking about himself.
>>
>> How about "most" then?
>>
> Getting better but "some" would be even better.

I'd go so far as to say "those who actually demonstrate stupidity on a 
regular basis". ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:09:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> You won't get an argument from me on that.

Good. ;-)  I didn't think I would.

> Unless you really want one. :-P

I think I'll pass - today in other forums I've been arguing (again) about 
the AZ immigration law and watching an argument on the Israel/Hamas 
situation.  I'm all argued out.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 2:07 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:08:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2010 7:17 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don’t know if I believe the script but anyone who says that *all*
>>>> Americans/Welsh/Jocks/… are stupid is talking about himself.
>>>
>>> How about "most" then?
>>>
>> Getting better but "some" would be even better.
>
> I'd go so far as to say "those who actually demonstrate stupidity on a
> regular basis". ;-)
>

"All those people in the US, who actually demonstrate stupidity on a 
regular basis, are stupid"
A bit of a mouthful and not very snappy, methinks. ;-)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 2:08 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:09:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> You won't get an argument from me on that.
>
> Good. ;-)  I didn't think I would.
>
>> Unless you really want one. :-P
>
> I think I'll pass - today in other forums I've been arguing (again) about
> the AZ immigration law and watching an argument on the Israel/Hamas
> situation.  I'm all argued out.
>

Poor you. An aspirin, a cup of sweet tea and an early night. You will be 
as right as rain in the morning. :-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 08:03:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> I'd go so far as to say "those who actually demonstrate stupidity on a
>> regular basis". ;-)
>>
>>
> "All those people in the US, who actually demonstrate stupidity on a
> regular basis, are stupid"
> A bit of a mouthful and not very snappy, methinks. ;-)

Well, yes, but it's accurate. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 08:06:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 04/06/2010 2:08 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:09:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> You won't get an argument from me on that.
>>
>> Good. ;-)  I didn't think I would.
>>
>>> Unless you really want one. :-P
>>
>> I think I'll pass - today in other forums I've been arguing (again)
>> about the AZ immigration law and watching an argument on the
>> Israel/Hamas situation.  I'm all argued out.
>>
>>
> Poor you. An aspirin, a cup of sweet tea and an early night. You will be
> as right as rain in the morning. :-)

Could've used more sleep, but had two episodes of Clue to listen to last 
night, and that helped. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 3:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 08:03:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> I'd go so far as to say "those who actually demonstrate stupidity on a
>>> regular basis". ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> "All those people in the US, who actually demonstrate stupidity on a
>> regular basis, are stupid"
>> A bit of a mouthful and not very snappy, methinks. ;-)
>
> Well, yes, but it's accurate. ;-)
>

And a tautology.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 3:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I think I'll pass - today in other forums I've been arguing (again)
>>> >>  about the AZ immigration law and watching an argument on the
>>> >>  Israel/Hamas situation.  I'm all argued out.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >  Poor you. An aspirin, a cup of sweet tea and an early night. You will be
>> >  as right as rain in the morning.:-)
> Could've used more sleep, but had two episodes of Clue to listen to last
> night, and that helped.:-)
>

It is hard to argue when you’re laughing :-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3-6-2010 19:20, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't know where the conversation is now, and it'd take too much time 
> to find it.  But in relation to the discussion about textbook issues in 
> the US, you asserted a generalisation that "all people in the US are 
> stupid" (or something to that effect).
> 
> The defense presents exhibit A:
> 
> http://notalwaysright.com/big-bother/5677
> 
> What's your interpretation of the intelligence of people in the UK based 
> on this? ;-)
> 
> Jim
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.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:53:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> Well, yes, but it's accurate. ;-)
>>
>>
> And a tautology.

Well, I can't argue that. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:54:57 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> Could've used more sleep, but had two episodes of Clue to listen to
>> last night, and that helped.:-)
>>
>>
> It is hard to argue when you’re laughing :-)

Ain't that the truth.  We're into 1984 (our second listen through).  It's 
been interesting to listen a second time and pick up on things in the 
earlier shows that we missed the first time through because we weren't 
aware of them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:16:20 +0200, 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.

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 9:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:53:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Well, yes, but it's accurate. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> And a tautology.
>
> Well, I can't argue that. ;-)
>

You are wrong!

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:08:16 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> And a tautology.
>>
>> Well, I can't argue that. ;-)
>>
>>
> You are wrong!

Well, yes, you're wrong, I *could* and *can* argue that, but I won't. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 10:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:08:16 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> And a tautology.
>>>
>>> Well, I can't argue that. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> You are wrong!
>
> Well, yes, you're wrong, I *could* and *can* argue that, but I won't. ;-)
>


But you are
:-P
-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 9:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:54:57 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Could've used more sleep, but had two episodes of Clue to listen to
>>> last night, and that helped.:-)
>>>
>>>
>> It is hard to argue when you’re laughing :-)
>
> Ain't that the truth.  We're into 1984 (our second listen through).  It's
> been interesting to listen a second time and pick up on things in the
> earlier shows that we missed the first time through because we weren't
> aware of them.
>

I’ve just found a site that has some ISIHAC CD’s for download along with 
other interesting things. http://radioarchive.cc/index.php

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:34:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> You are wrong!
>>
>> Well, yes, you're wrong, I *could* and *can* argue that, but I won't.
>> ;-)
>>
> But you are
> :-P

No, I'm not, I'm arguing about whether or not I'm arguing about it.  
Biiiig difference. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:36:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> I’ve just found a site that has some ISIHAC CD’s for download along with
> other interesting things. http://radioarchive.cc/index.php

Yeah, that's where I found Navy Lark. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 10:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:34:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> You are wrong!
>>>
>>> Well, yes, you're wrong, I *could* and *can* argue that, but I won't.
>>> ;-)
>>>
>> But you are
>> :-P
>
> No, I'm not, I'm arguing about whether or not I'm arguing about it.
> Biiiig difference. ;-)
>

Well I’m arguing whether or not you’re just arguing and you are. :-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 10:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:36:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I’ve just found a site that has some ISIHAC CD’s for download along with
>> other interesting things. http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
>
> Yeah, that's where I found Navy Lark. :-)
>

And you didn't tell me about it. HUMPH!

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:14:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 04/06/2010 10:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:34:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>> You are wrong!
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes, you're wrong, I *could* and *can* argue that, but I won't.
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>> But you are
>>> :-P
>>
>> No, I'm not, I'm arguing about whether or not I'm arguing about it.
>> Biiiig difference. ;-)
>>
>>
> Well I’m arguing whether or not you’re just arguing and you are. :-)

No, you were arguing about whether I was arguing about it being a 
tautology, and I'm not arguing that. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:16:02 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 04/06/2010 10:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:36:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I’ve just found a site that has some ISIHAC CD’s for download along
>>> with other interesting things. http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
>>
>> Yeah, that's where I found Navy Lark. :-)
>>
>>
> And you didn't tell me about it. HUMPH!

I thought you knew about it! ;-)

And what does Humph have to do with it?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 11:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:14:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2010 10:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:34:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You are wrong!
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes, you're wrong, I *could* and *can* argue that, but I won't.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> But you are
>>>> :-P
>>>
>>> No, I'm not, I'm arguing about whether or not I'm arguing about it.
>>> Biiiig difference. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Well I’m arguing whether or not you’re just arguing and you are. :-)
>
> No, you were arguing about whether I was arguing about it being a
> tautology, and I'm not arguing that. ;-)
>

Flipping Eck! you're right. See that good night's sleep worked wonders. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:51:32 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> Well I’m arguing whether or not you’re just arguing and you are. :-)
>>
>> No, you were arguing about whether I was arguing about it being a
>> tautology, and I'm not arguing that. ;-)
>>
>>
> Flipping Eck! you're right. See that good night's sleep worked wonders.
> ;-)

Pity I didn't get a good night's sleep - still didn't get to sleep until 
after 1, and was up about 6 hours later (had to prepare for participation 
in two group interviews this morning). :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
Guitar for sale. Very cheap. No strings attached.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/06/2010 12:40 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:51:32 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> Well I’m arguing whether or not you’re just arguing and you are. :-)
>>>
>>> No, you were arguing about whether I was arguing about it being a
>>> tautology, and I'm not arguing that. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Flipping Eck! you're right. See that good night's sleep worked wonders.
>> ;-)
>
> Pity I didn't get a good night's sleep - still didn't get to sleep until
> after 1, and was up about 6 hours later (had to prepare for participation
> in two group interviews this morning). :-)
>

No wonder you were grumpy and argumentative. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 11:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:16:02 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2010 10:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:36:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’ve just found a site that has some ISIHAC CD’s for download along
>>>> with other interesting things. http://radioarchive.cc/index.php
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's where I found Navy Lark. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> And you didn't tell me about it. HUMPH!
>
> I thought you knew about it! ;-)
>

No, I got my Navy Lark from the Goons Show Depository (long gone for 
downloads :-(  )

> And what does Humph have to do with it?
>

Not a lot now. :-(


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:52:16 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> Pity I didn't get a good night's sleep - still didn't get to sleep
>> until after 1, and was up about 6 hours later (had to prepare for
>> participation in two group interviews this morning). :-)
>>
>>
> No wonder you were grumpy and argumentative. ;-)

I wasn't!  ;-)

(Been playing with my new router tonight, damn, is it *really* 4:40 AM?)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:56:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> I thought you knew about it! ;-)
>>
>>
> No, I got my Navy Lark from the Goons Show Depository (long gone for
> downloads :-(  )

Yeah, I had seen that site - there's still the seagoon server in Japan, 
but it's not set up for someone to suck all episodes, but good for 
filling in missing eps.

>> And what does Humph have to do with it?
>>
>>
> Not a lot now. :-(

Sadly true.  New series comes out soon, doesn't it?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 05/06/2010 11:41 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:52:16 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Pity I didn't get a good night's sleep - still didn't get to sleep
>>> until after 1, and was up about 6 hours later (had to prepare for
>>> participation in two group interviews this morning). :-)
>>>
>>>
>> No wonder you were grumpy and argumentative. ;-)
>
> I wasn't!  ;-)
>

Was.

> (Been playing with my new router tonight, damn, is it *really* 4:40 AM?)
>

Near enough. :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:52:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> I wasn't!  ;-)
>>
>>
> Was.

Wasn't.  <harumph!>

>> (Been playing with my new router tonight, damn, is it *really* 4:40
>> AM?)
>>
>>
> Near enough. :-P

Yeah, now approaching 5 AM pretty quickly.

But the new router *is* cool in that it is working as expected, running 
open firmware. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 05/06/2010 11:42 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:56:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> I thought you knew about it! ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> No, I got my Navy Lark from the Goons Show Depository (long gone for
>> downloads :-(  )
>
> Yeah, I had seen that site - there's still the seagoon server in Japan,
> but it's not set up for someone to suck all episodes, but good for
> filling in missing eps.
>

I'll have a look

>>> And what does Humph have to do with it?
>>>
>>>
>> Not a lot now. :-(
>
> Sadly true.  New series comes out soon, doesn't it?
>

Yes, There was a recording in Carlisle last week.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 05/06/2010 11:53 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:52:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> I wasn't!  ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Was.
>
> Wasn't.<harumph!>
>

Was.

>>> (Been playing with my new router tonight, damn, is it *really* 4:40
>>> AM?)
>>>
>>>
>> Near enough. :-P
>
> Yeah, now approaching 5 AM pretty quickly.
>

True.

> But the new router *is* cool in that it is working as expected, running
> open firmware. :-)
>

Nice one. :-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:59:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 05/06/2010 11:53 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:52:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> I wasn't!  ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Was.
>>
>> Wasn't.<harumph!>
>>
>>
> Was.

n't.  <grumble> ;-)


>>>> (Been playing with my new router tonight, damn, is it *really* 4:40
>>>> AM?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Near enough. :-P
>>
>> Yeah, now approaching 5 AM pretty quickly.
>>
>>
> True.

And now just after 6 AM.  I'm *finally* starting to get too tired to do 
much more; I hit the wall (metaphorically) about 90 minutes ago and 
decided trying to learn how to configure freeradius was futile in my 
current condition, as was trying to work out configuring a virtual 
network interface for the open wifi I want to set up that's restricted to 
minimal ports and a fraction of the total bandwidth available.

Those projects will wait for another day.

I got QoS running, and the router is acting as a USB print server as 
well.  And it's doing the port forwarding I need, and I even got it to 
mount a USB flash drive, so I should be able to install a fair bit more 
software after I spend some time configuring it to relocate its 
filesystem to the flash drive.  Basically start it off on its own flash, 
and then swap the root partition out after it boots.

>> But the new router *is* cool in that it is working as expected, running
>> open firmware. :-)
>>
>>
> Nice one. :-)

I'm pleased, certainly.  Hopefully this will mean I don't have to 
micromanage bandwidth utilisation during the workday, and my work phone 
will be able to get the bandwidth it needs for a clear signal, regardless 
of whether someone's streaming a film from Netflix or not (that'd be a 
good test).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:58:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>>> And what does Humph have to do with it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not a lot now. :-(
>>
>> Sadly true.  New series comes out soon, doesn't it?
>>
>>
> Yes, There was a recording in Carlisle last week.

Yeah, I heard about the recording schedule.  Just can't wait for it to 
get here.  And "Stupid Boys in Cars" (aka "Top Gear"), which comes back 
later this month (the 21st IIRC).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 05/06/2010 1:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:59:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 05/06/2010 11:53 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:52:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I wasn't!  ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Was.
>>>
>>> Wasn't.<harumph!>
>>>
>>>
>> Was.
>
> n't.<grumble>  ;-)
>
>

Was.

> And now just after 6 AM.

A ghoster ;-)

> I'm *finally* starting to get too tired to do
> much more; I hit the wall (metaphorically) about 90 minutes ago and
> decided trying to learn how to configure freeradius was futile in my
> current condition, as was trying to work out configuring a virtual
> network interface for the open wifi I want to set up that's restricted to
> minimal ports and a fraction of the total bandwidth available.
>
> Those projects will wait for another day.

:-D

>
>
>>> But the new router *is* cool in that it is working as expected, running
>>> open firmware. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Nice one. :-)
>
> I'm pleased, certainly.  Hopefully this will mean I don't have to
> micromanage bandwidth utilisation during the workday, and my work phone
> will be able to get the bandwidth it needs for a clear signal, regardless
> of whether someone's streaming a film from Netflix or not (that'd be a
> good test).
>

Ooo! Geeky. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:48:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Was.

Not. :-)

>> And now just after 6 AM.
> 
> A ghoster ;-)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  I finally went to bed after my wife came out at 7 AM 
and greeted me.  Slept from about 7:30 until a little after noon.

>> Those projects will wait for another day.
> 
> :-D

Its another day. :-)

>>> Nice one. :-)
>>
>> I'm pleased, certainly.  Hopefully this will mean I don't have to
>> micromanage bandwidth utilisation during the workday, and my work phone
>> will be able to get the bandwidth it needs for a clear signal,
>> regardless of whether someone's streaming a film from Netflix or not
>> (that'd be a good test).
>>
>>
> Ooo! Geeky. ;-)

Yeah, very much so.  First thing I wanted to see this morning was the 
bandwidth and utilisation charts, since I left a few things running while 
I was sleeping.

But *really* geeky is being excited about being able to run tcpdump on 
the router for packet analysis. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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!

>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.  I finally went to bed after my wife came out at 7 AM
> and greeted me.  Slept from about 7:30 until a little after noon.
>

I get marched to bed by my ear with the threat of taking snips to the 
mains cable.

>>> Those projects will wait for another day.
>>
>> :-D
>
> Its another day. :-)
>

Go for it!


>> Ooo! Geeky. ;-)
>
> Yeah, very much so.  First thing I wanted to see this morning was the
> bandwidth and utilisation charts, since I left a few things running while
> I was sleeping.
>
> But *really* geeky is being excited about being able to run tcpdump on
> the router for packet analysis. :-)
>

If the men in white coats don't come for you soon I'll phone again. ;-)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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. ;-)

>> Yeah, yeah, yeah.  I finally went to bed after my wife came out at 7 AM
>> and greeted me.  Slept from about 7:30 until a little after noon.
>>
>>
> 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. :-)

>>>> Those projects will wait for another day.
>>>
>>> :-D
>>
>> Its another day. :-)
>>
>>
> 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.

>> But *really* geeky is being excited about being able to run tcpdump on
>> the router for packet analysis. :-)
>>
> 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).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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