 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> but is this the sort of thing you want the world to know?
>
> Or, the sort of thing *she* wants the world to know?
Well *obviously* I asked her about that before posting my message. :-P
(I believe her exact words were "go for it!")
> I hate to imagine the content of the next "Random wanderings" post...
Hahahaha! OMG, I hadn't even thought about that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Hey baby, this is the new Andrew 2.0 edition here!
I thought it was 3.2 edition... :p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Ah, priorities. Life is all about them. For instance, right now I'm
> sitting here reading people bickering about locating DLLs on Windows, or
> about the purpose of autoconf, or how to implement bijective type
> functions using type families... and it all seems oddly irrelevant to me
> now. And that's mainly becuase last night I GOT TOTALLY LAID!
Heh. And now I've reading the draft of the new Standard Operating
Procedure on "Change Control for Computerized (sic) Systems with
Regulatory Impact". It has over 35 comments and edits on it, and as you
can imagine, it's quite rivoting stuff. Dry, beaurocrated procedural
details. I'm really having trouble concentrating here...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Gotta love a little TMI-bomb in the early afternoon, right? ;-)
The overshare light is on.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I hate to imagine the content of the next "Random wanderings" post...
That's my LOL for the morning!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Gotta love a little TMI-bomb in the early afternoon, right? ;-)
>
> The overshare light is on.
LOL! I gotta remember that one...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/31/2010 8:41 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Heh. And now I've reading the draft of the new Standard Operating
> Procedure on "Change Control for Computerized (sic) Systems with
> Regulatory Impact". It has over 35 comments and edits on it, and as you
> can imagine, it's quite rivoting stuff. Dry, beaurocrated procedural
> details. I'm really having trouble concentrating here...
It seems v2.0 may have some regression errors. Oh well. Back to beta
testing with you then.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/30/2010 6:14 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Best. Monday. Ever.
>
I was at a loss for words until now.
Now I have words: Oh...dear...God...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> It seems v2.0 may have some regression errors. Oh well. Back to beta
> testing with you then.
Hey, most people have to do something dull to earn a living. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> I was at a loss for words until now.
>
> Now I have words: Oh...dear...God...
Yes, that is correct my friend. >:-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
