 | | Re: Suggested CD-R(W) Burner programs
|
|
(...) LG Electronics CD-RW 8x4x32x Internal Rewritable Drive CED-8080B A blank 80 minute CD shows up the same as a 74 minute one under "My Computer"...ie, labeled "-empty-" with 0 used and 0 free space. The only difference is that the burner (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function reactivated (was: News search function temporarily disabled)
|
|
(...) oops, doy! I didn't put in the propagation of that URL term. I don't consider it 100% "documented" yet (it's still subject to change without notice), but I still shouldn't have missed that. Thanks. I'll fix that. The reason it's subject to (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function reactivated (was: News search function temporarily disabled)
|
|
(...) It works great! ... but the &qs doesn't carry over to the next page of results. So if I want to see more pages, I have to edit the querystring on each page. Since you already have the inner workings of this in place, it would be really easy to (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Suggested CD-R(W) Burner programs
|
|
(...) Are you sure it isn't your burner that doesn't recognize the 80 minute blanks? What model do you have? I know that when 80 minute blanks first hit the market there were a lot of CDRs that wouldn't burn on them. (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Suggested CD-R(W) Burner programs
|
|
The program that came with my CD-RW drive (just!burn by CeQuadrat--includes cd!backup, just!data, and just!audio) doesn't seem to recognize the 80 minute CD-Rs I just bought ($17 for 100 CDs!). Does anyone have a suggestion for a burner program that (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function reactivated (was: News search function temporarily disabled)
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I would have to concur. (...) < goes away and tries it... > Umm - Would it not make sense to simply include the appropriate qualifier on the system side? (I tried it and got two year old results for "qs", but I'm probably doing (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function reactivated (was: News search function temporarily disabled)
|
|
(...) Not yet, no. See "to-do soon" section in previous post. (...) For now, if you don't mind URL mucking, you can manually append &qs=<number> to the URL and it will use that number (in seconds) as a time delta. For example, to limit posts to the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function reactivated (was: News search function temporarily disabled)
|
|
(...) Could you tell us the URL syntax for those of us willing to modify URLs? (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) No we don't need to renumber all the previous years. We just need to give the year 1 BC two names. Or we can be non-anal about it and accept that to the average person, it makes more sense that the millenium starts in 2000 not 2001. On the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) Doesn't matter. It's the *2001st* year since we started counting. Not 2000th: I think that's what you're missing. *Last* year was the 2000th year; that's why it was called "2000". (...) Well, as I said in my post, you are *in* your 38th year. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) Bah, it's all irrelevant. The universe was created last Tuesday, already in its present form. J (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function reactivated (was: News search function temporarily disabled)
|
|
(...) Very good! Although the new search doesn't return most recent articles first like it used to. Is that how it should work? Now I can't see most recent posts that contain the keyword I want to search for, which makes the search pretty much (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl-script for reading mail from web mail
|
|
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:qrdwvcj1aqi.fsf....uio.no... (...) This would probably be really complicated - you'd have to set the script up to interpret each different service and get the messages in their (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Help Needed with Quick ebay Test-UPDATE
|
|
"Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatic...mblock.ca> wrote in message news:G6HpuE.1L4@lugnet.com... (...) Are you accessing the web via a proxy? If so then the proxy is probably storing the pages and that's why you're only seeing updates when you (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | News search function reactivated (was: News search function temporarily disabled)
|
|
The LUGNET News search function is now re-enabled. I completely revamped the index data structures and list-merge algorithm and rewrote the core query engine in C. It's a much more solid implementation. Everyone's patience during the outage is much (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.announce) !!
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) You act as if what people did for all the centuries when our system WAS in use do not matter. In 1901 this was not an issue; they treated just as people did in 1801, and 1701. It is only our century that decided not to. (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) You're totally ignoring my point. My point is that the relevancy of how we call things is so little, that what makes the most sense to me is to say that decades start when the last digit of the year turns 0, centuries start when the last two (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) That's when the *1900s* start -- just as the 80s start at 1980. (...) Sure. But for whatever reason, we do say that we are currently in the year 2001. Note that it doesn't work like birthdays, which count the number of years *completed*. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) in (...) 1989/12/31 (...) Well, my point would be that the 20th century most sensibly (to me) starts 1900/01/01 so the 9th decade would still start at 1980/01/01. But really its all pretty irrelevant. The 20th century isn't the 20th century of (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) But if you're talking about the 9th decade of the 20th century, aren't you referring to 1981/01/01 to 1990/12/31? --Todd (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
