00:00:00 --- log: started forth/07.09.26 00:03:43 --- join: H4ns (n=Hans@c-76-19-226-121.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) joined #forth 00:14:44 --- quit: mr_proteus (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 00:33:12 --- join: mr_proteus (n=proteusg@ppp-124.120.216.164.revip2.asianet.co.th) joined #forth 00:35:40 --- join: forther (n=forther@c-67-180-150-67.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 00:54:54 --- join: Fractal (i=jah@hcsw.org) joined #forth 01:05:17 --- quit: forther (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 01:42:37 --- quit: Off_Namuh ("using sirc version 2.211") 02:05:35 --- quit: madgarden (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 02:51:12 --- quit: wossname (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 03:13:02 --- join: FMota (n=FMota@dhcp-36-203-57-69.cf-res.cfu.net) joined #forth 03:17:02 --- join: Off_Namuh (i=GPS@gateway/tor/x-c33cdaf1dcce0568) joined #forth 04:33:05 --- join: wossname (n=w@CPE00195b252b77-CM001a666a6e78.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 04:44:15 --- quit: Off_Namuh (Remote closed the connection) 05:06:46 --- quit: nighty^ ("Disappears in a puff of smoke") 05:09:24 --- join: nighty^ (n=nighty@72.0.72.123) joined #forth 05:13:51 --- quit: nighty^ (Client Quit) 05:23:56 --- quit: uiuiu (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 05:50:48 --- join: madgarden (n=madgarde@bas2-kitchener06-1096652694.dsl.bell.ca) joined #forth 05:51:17 --- join: H4n1 (n=Hans@c-76-19-226-121.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) joined #forth 05:54:51 --- join: timlarson_ (n=timlarso@65.116.199.19) joined #forth 06:08:56 --- quit: H4ns (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 06:51:21 --- join: Quartus__ (n=Quartus_@205.205.50.2) joined #forth 07:18:21 --- quit: madgarden (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 07:43:23 --- join: forther (n=forther@c-67-180-150-67.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 08:29:23 --- join: ygrek (i=user@gateway/tor/x-ffe17cc735ab8a12) joined #forth 09:25:32 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 09:25:32 --- mode: ChanServ set +o tathi 09:34:26 --- quit: forther (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 09:35:52 --- quit: tathi ("leaving") 09:37:58 --- join: ziggurat (n=ziggurat@pool-71-164-227-62.dllstx.fios.verizon.net) joined #forth 09:46:34 --- join: neceve (n=ncv@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 09:53:19 --- join: TreyB_ (n=trey@cpe-66-87-192-27.tx.sprintbbd.net) joined #forth 09:53:28 *&^#$@#* 09:54:06 *&^#$@#* 09:54:06 ^^^^^^^^ 09:54:06 Error(-13): *&^#$@#* is undefined 09:54:22 I figure out how to make spamassassin and autorespond work together, so it doesn't send out responders to spammers 09:54:32 (who fake from-addresses and thus trick my server into bugging innocent people) 09:54:56 since I use absolute paths for overything, this makes the command 161 characters long 09:55:10 valias exits without doing anything when I tell it to set up that mail alias 09:55:15 no exit code, nothing 09:55:35 I look at the source code, and find that valias limits itself to 160 characters 09:56:13 happy birthday 09:59:23 heh 09:59:50 ln -s /v /var or something :P 10:00:27 the parameter parsing code in valias allows 300 chars, but it's limited to 160 in the file that actually sticks the alias into the qmail file 10:00:34 --- quit: TreyB (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 10:00:39 I could take a couple spaces out 10:00:59 trouble is I have a script that sets up these autoresponders 10:01:11 some with shorter or longer filenames. This one is particularly short 10:01:32 and it will silently fail in most cases if I add in the spamassassin stuff 10:01:59 think I just have to write a script to be called from .qmail so it can be shorter 10:02:13 Heh, it's the right channel to discuss long filenames in. 10:03:55 Har! Good point! 10:12:04 the longest filename as 22 chars 10:13:57 --- quit: ygrek (Remote closed the connection) 10:14:49 --- quit: Al2O3_ (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 10:15:31 --- join: ygrek (i=user@gateway/tor/x-1a8500b1a209ddaa) joined #forth 10:17:06 ok, done screwing with that. 10:17:38 the world is now a better place, as I'm not sending out bounces for so many bogus emails 10:18:26 I really really really wish we could replace e-mail with something more functional 10:18:31 like IM2000 10:19:16 That would be good. 10:19:50 Sending a mail feels a bit like shouting to someone operating a chainsaw, and getting no indication about wether or not the message got through. 10:19:59 right 10:20:06 the way it's set up there needs to be bounces 10:20:15 but bounces don't work, because we can't tell where a message is coming from 10:20:34 if I send out boinces, then the spammers abuse my system and the spam police get on my case 10:22:15 Yeah.. they ought to ban spam. ;) 10:22:40 --- join: Off_Namuh (i=GPS@gateway/tor/x-b6d4819a9a174fd5) joined #forth 10:22:48 we aught to switch to a system that's more resilliant 10:22:58 Are there any systems that actually acknowledge a successful delivery to the other endpoint, rather than try to send error messages if it can NOT be delivered? 10:23:12 yeah 10:23:14 im2000 10:23:22 Neat 10:23:27 dunno if anybody's implemented it, but I think it's a sound design 10:23:30 very well thought out 10:23:44 the idea is that you host outboxes instead of inboxes 10:23:52 if I'm sending you a message, it sits in my outbox, on my mailserver 10:24:08 you have a kind of tracker instead of inbox 10:24:20 * Robert looks it up 10:24:27 my mailserver sends a tiny packet (probably udp) to your tracker every once and a while so it knows I've got a message for you 10:24:59 if you're accepting mail from me (ie I'm not on a blacklist you trust, or whatever) then when you fetch your mail you get it directly from my outbox. 10:25:28 so I know when you've recieved my message because you're connecting to my mail server to get it. 10:25:47 I of course can't tell if you've read it or actually seen it, but I can tell your mail software picked it up 10:27:20 Hm, so if a spam filter flags it as spam, it would likely just disappear (like today)? 10:28:15 --- join: Al2O3 (n=Al2O3@c-75-70-5-69.hsd1.co.comcast.net) joined #forth 10:28:31 Robert: that has nothing to do with the technology used to deliver mail 10:29:00 we purposely don't notify the senders of spam that we're on to them 10:29:21 if we told them which messages we're flagging as spam, then that much easier for them to work around our spam filters 10:30:06 How about just sending a confirmation for the mails that are NOT flagged? Anything flagged as spam would be silently dropped. 10:30:11 --- quit: TreyB_ (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 10:30:45 same thing 10:31:08 --- join: forther (n=forther@207.47.34.100.static.nextweb.net) joined #forth 10:31:36 with IM2000, if you get a notification from a known spammer server, you just ignore the notification 10:31:45 it's UDP, so they can't even tell if you got the notification 10:32:19 if they fall off the blacklist later, you can fetch the message 10:32:43 there's a big advantage to people fetching their mail at different times 10:33:10 that way when there's a mass spamming, some people grab the messages right away and flag the sending server on the blacklists 10:33:41 then when I go to get my mail a few minutes later, the server is already flagged, and I'm in the clear 10:34:14 whereas with the current system, the messages would already be waiting in my inbox by the time the sending server got flagged on the blacklists 10:34:18 That's pretty nice, but what I don't know is the situation where I have no idea if the mail was delivered or not. 10:34:31 er, I mean I what I don't _like_ is... 10:34:39 Robert: yeah, you said that. that has nothing to do with the way mail delivery works 10:35:03 Robert: you can ensure that the message gets delivered. You cannot know if the person reads it, or if their mail client deletes it for them 10:35:24 Maybe so, but it's certainly important to the user. 10:35:30 yeah 10:35:34 Would a spam filter count as client then? 10:35:50 but it's the recipients choice to let you know he read your e-mail or not 10:36:14 I would NEVER use a mail client that automatically notified senders about when I read their mail 10:36:23 that's my business 10:36:43 Neither would I, but I'd like to at least be notified that the mail has been delivered to their mailbox, or something like that. 10:36:54 Rather than dropped automatically. 10:36:57 yeah, im2000 does that 10:37:04 you can tell if they fetch the message 10:37:08 you can't tell if they keep it 10:37:23 you can tell when they fetch the message 10:38:13 im2000 isn't in itself a spam-prevention method 10:38:22 but it makes existing spam prevention systems work way better 10:38:30 eg blacklists, as I've been saying 10:38:50 groupwise here at works tells the sender when you open an email 10:39:31 does im2000 have problems, or is it just in the no-elbow-grease-applied-yet stage? 10:39:33 timlarson_: thats creepy 10:39:40 I agree 10:39:43 Yeah, but if the blacklists give no match, and e.g. bayesian filtering gives a false positive, the mail would be dropped without the sender noticing. 10:39:55 And without the recipient being aware of it. 10:40:05 timlarson_: I think the hangup is that nobody's convinced that they'll be able to get the world to switch to it 10:40:22 We had a system like that at school, you could even delete mail sent to others. 10:40:34 Robert: yep 10:40:53 Robert: that's the problem with content filtering 10:41:12 if the spammer knows the mail is received, they have a solid email address to work with 10:41:12 Robert: if there's content filtering, and privacy, any system will have that problem 10:41:14 who says "switch"...email addresses that use the new system could be written slightly differently (say replace the @ with something... 10:41:23 but, aren't they blacklisted already? 10:41:26 anyone with a new-symbol email address goes through the new system 10:41:44 wait i need to go back to bed 10:41:45 wossname: It would be silently dropped if the filter marks it as spam, though... which (with good spam filters) should be the most common case. 10:42:09 ive had some good emails fall thru the cracks 10:42:30 timlarson_: it's not useful to have an account on some new protocol if you can't communicate to your friends with it 10:42:53 to get people to switch requires some noticeable benefit to the end user 10:43:00 or it needs to be interoperable with email 10:43:05 people pick up new networking tools all the time, without "switching", just "adding"...e.g. RSS 10:43:07 also, i'm getting some wierd gmail stuff 10:43:25 timlarson_: rss does something that you couldn't do without it 10:43:40 i'm getting what seem to be legimitate chinese emails in my spam folders, addressed to a very similar gmail mailbox 10:43:52 timlarson_: that's the kind of "noticeable benifit" I meant 10:44:20 wossname: Heh 10:44:42 also, I'd like to see some trust network stuff integrated into a messaging system 10:44:46 actually no, it's chinese spams 10:44:54 i wonder why i'm getting any at all tho 10:45:50 hmm...build something like im2000 into a distributed version control system...let the hackers use it to message each other 10:46:08 and to keep their source databases in sync 10:47:34 trust networks can do amazing things 10:48:01 I've got an account on couchsurfing.com 10:48:43 and when I find a random person anywhere in the world, if they've got at least 5-10 people they trust, then it'll find many chains of trust between me and them 10:48:53 usually 10:49:44 it blows my mind. My friend told me of a coop house in Montreal (where I've never been) and I goodled it and found a guy on couchsurfing.com who said he lived there, and sure enough, it finds about 8 or 10 links between us 10:50:03 trust no one! 10:50:12 a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend 10:50:20 Hmm... would be interesting to try something like that with mail. 10:50:32 yep, that's my point 10:50:47 you can do that with payments too 10:50:48 Think it would work better than agreements between ISPs and organizations? 10:50:52 ripplepay.com 10:51:49 Heh, I don't even trust my family to pay me back ;) 10:52:11 well, in order to use ripplepay.com you have to connect with at least a couple people you trust to pay you back 10:52:18 and who trust you to pay them back 10:52:21 doesn't matter how much though 10:52:26 you can set your trust at $10 10:53:07 they recommend setting it at whatever amount of money you'd feel fine giving to that person 10:53:15 because if you set it higher, it'll be a source of stress 10:54:06 ripplepay is amazing 10:54:17 if lots of people used it you wouldn't need a bank 10:54:38 you can pay people accross the world in cash 10:54:45 (or however their friends like to pay them) 10:55:25 Hm, a world without banks... 10:56:24 Sounds like a nice idea though, if it works at a large scale. 10:57:44 I give my friend $20, and the guy who helped me remotely from Japan gets 2286 JPY from his friend down the street 10:57:51 sure does. 10:58:34 and the best part is, for the most part, I won't even have to bother giving my friend $20, because when the system sees that I owe my friend $20, it tries to route another transaction through us the other direction so it clears the dept 10:58:45 eg when I sell something to someone else, and it goes through that same friend of mine 10:59:40 routing algorithms are tricky 11:00:11 but it's totally sound 11:00:14 Have there been any serious attempts to exploit it? 11:00:21 you can't 11:00:26 it's just like banks 11:00:35 you'd have to break into the servers where they keep the numbers 11:00:49 difference is everybody can have their own bank, and it still works fine 11:00:59 you don't need a centralized anything 11:01:35 it get's a little complex to implement 11:01:40 especially when you include multiple currencies 11:02:01 if the dollar doesn't feel stable, you could use some other currency, like gold 11:02:14 or euros 11:03:20 ripplepay.com is an implementation on one server 11:03:33 the author is working on the software to make it distributed 11:04:27 you captured my interest 11:04:40 I guess if you can gain someone's trust, you might as well defraid them in other ways. 11:05:15 Robert: huh? 11:05:35 so if you have small measures of mutual trust with a good number of people, you have a large amount of credit. 11:05:48 the beauty is that the system can find loops, and save us the trouble of actually exchanging anything 11:05:56 I mean, if I make a bunch of people trust me with $10 each, and keep whatever money is routed through me, I'd make some money. 11:06:35 eg if I owe my friend Joe $50, and he owes Angy $70, and Ange ows me $40, the system can notice that loop, and cancel out the $40 11:06:49 eg pretend that we each gave $40 to the next person and got it from the previous 11:07:18 so then I'd only owe Joe $10, and he'd only owe $20, and Angy would be all clear 11:07:24 distributed banker's algebra 11:07:27 And as for distributedness, who would be the peers? Home computers? Or well-securied servers (paid by whom?) 11:08:01 Robert: that'd be your problem :) 11:08:06 What about currency exchange rates and transfer delays? 11:08:16 sounds like a stress-reducer (this using of loops to reduce individual charges) 11:08:32 It would be a problem indeed for the clueless people with Windows systems out there. 11:08:39 If it's run locally. 11:09:12 I agree it doesn't really have anything to do with the system as such, but in practice I assume that _would_ be an issue. 11:09:41 could it use some sort of freenode/tor/onion encryption to guard against breakins at insecure windows boxes? 11:10:45 Robert: I wouldn't trust people who have their bank running on a windows box 11:11:30 Heh, well, that's probably wise.. but there's a lot of people using windows out there. 11:11:42 Robert: yep 11:11:48 Robert: you can trust them if you want 11:12:00 :) 11:12:11 I don't see why anybody would run the bank software on their home computer. this is silly 11:12:29 Where do you think it should be hosted, then? 11:12:40 on secure servers 11:12:55 Run by? 11:13:03 someone you trust 11:13:19 either by reputation, or personally 11:13:30 why do you trust Bank Of America? 11:15:38 --- quit: ecraven ("bbl") 11:16:00 I'm not sure exactly what you can do by breaking into the bank 11:16:26 it doesn't actually have any money in it 11:16:34 it just tracks little IOUs between friends 11:17:07 the only really obvious benefit I can think of is if you can hack into your friend's bank, and make it so the bank says your friend owes you money 11:17:15 but then you're just stealing from your friend 11:17:21 and I think there's much easier ways to do that 11:18:59 there's probably something more insedious you could do 11:19:02 Dunno 11:19:10 thing is, I'm never going to give money to anybody, except my friends 11:19:12 Hm, not sure how easy it would be to "transfer money" in several steps, so it becomes harder to recover. 11:19:54 I guess it might be good enough for smallish amounts. 11:20:08 "transfer money"? 11:20:57 Yeah, writing a chain of IOUs leading from some stranger, up to someone who trusts you, and finally to you.. 11:21:01 I think the whole thing is pretty clear 11:21:53 Robert: yeah, I supposed if you hack a bank, you could find such a chain, in which all people are using that bank 11:22:29 the part I haven't totally thought through yet is if I have to trust my friends' banks 11:22:50 presumably we have to agree on a bank to track the debt between us 11:23:29 I think I only have to trust my own bank 11:23:44 It's an interesting concept though, haven't thought about it before.. but I think I'll look into it. 11:24:20 basically I tell my bank: "I'll accept a debt of up to $50 to this guy with public key x" 11:25:22 then when my friend wants to buy something, his bank can ask mine, prove he has that key, and my bank will let me know that I owe that friend some money, and another of my friends ows me that same amount 11:26:49 so basically, I'm trusting my friend to pay me $50. 11:27:03 even if it's because someone got hold of his key 11:27:38 it's his responsibility to keep it safe 11:27:47 ie by using a secure bank 11:28:18 and being careful about the personal computers he uses to make transactions 11:28:22 same as normal banks 11:28:59 If I log into my normal bank account from an infected computer, someone could get my website password, and log in, and access my funds 11:29:09 with a keylogger or some such 11:30:06 --- quit: Quartus__ (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 11:30:46 I don't think there's any way I can end up owing more money total, unless I accept at transaction, or someone hacks my bank 11:31:22 otherwise, all people can do is route money through me 11:31:30 which just makes me owe one friend more, and one less 11:31:58 finally, an easy way to launder money 11:32:00 the only sense in which I have a single "balance" is the sum of all the IOUs I have with my friends 11:32:41 wossname: it doesn't work with large amounts of money unless you have a lot of trust going on 11:33:13 your spending power is determined by the total amount that all your friends are willing to lend to you 11:34:49 it's a currency system in which there doesn't actually need to be any currency 11:35:28 I could have all my personal trust connections based on work exchange 11:35:41 ie that we repay debts to eachother by working for $15/hour 11:36:21 my friend Joe and I can absolve our debts to eachother in any way we agree on 11:36:59 we can have it be on our honor 11:37:03 or we could sign a contract 11:37:07 whatever works for ya 11:37:35 think i'll stick with my valuable canadian dollars 11:37:57 canadian dollars are doing pretty well 11:38:15 who's monopoly money now, bitch??! 11:39:30 It also interests me in that it's a zero-balance system that actually works 11:39:50 the trouble with cash is that there's a constantly changing amount of it 11:40:18 small amounts constantly get destroyed/lost, and the government keeps printing more 11:40:48 with ripplepay all the depts in the system always add up to zero 11:41:02 understanding economics is too hard 11:41:37 the cool part is that if someone leaves the system, it doesn't rob everybody on the system 11:41:45 they just have outstanding depts with some friends 11:41:49 doesn't affect me at all 11:42:14 it is neat 11:42:15 --- join: TreyB (n=trey@cpe-66-87-192-27.tx.sprintbbd.net) joined #forth 11:42:25 if my friend Joe wants to stop using ripplepay, that's fine. I'll just ask him to pay me the $10 he ows me 11:42:51 if he doesn't cough it up, it doesn't hurt ripple pay, just stupid me for trusting him to keep his word 11:43:18 but, again, I'm the one that decided how much I'd be willing to lend 11:43:32 and it was an amount small enough that I'm happy to just give it to him 11:46:36 --- quit: forther ("Leaving") 11:54:50 --- join: forther (n=forther@207.47.34.100.static.nextweb.net) joined #forth 12:04:37 --- quit: ziggurat ("Leaving") 12:08:14 --- quit: TreyB (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 12:15:23 --- quit: ygrek (Remote closed the connection) 12:19:45 JasonWoof: I don't think you've ever been so vocal in here before. 12:20:01 But I agree -- I'm a huge fan of IM2000, at least in principle. I'm sure there are unforeseen bugs with it. 12:20:18 Maybe we should work on a Forth implementation of the concept to serve as a research vehicle, and publish the results? 13:28:19 kc5tja: is there a portable way to do tcp and udp in gforth? 13:28:46 if not can it at least work the same on FreeBSD and Linux? 13:29:09 wow, the last 7 screenfulls was mostly me 13:29:19 the power of procrastination :) 13:29:35 --- quit: timlarson_ ("Leaving") 13:30:00 --- join: TreyB (n=trey@cpe-66-87-192-27.tx.sprintbbd.net) joined #forth 13:32:11 Heheh 13:32:26 GForth supports, via the ffcall library, foreign function calls. 13:32:41 but no builting networking api 13:32:46 It is conceivable that, were sockets not supported, it is possible to integrate sockets capability into GForth by writing a short C library stub. 13:32:48 builtin 13:32:55 There might be, I do not know. 13:33:00 true 13:33:03 GForth has zero useful documentation. 13:33:23 My GForth at home lacks a "socket" word. 13:39:44 we'll need UDP 13:39:57 trouble is we'd have to write a good client 13:42:29 the server seems manageable to me 13:42:36 but there's no way I'm writing the client 13:43:24 --- join: james26 (n=bill@156.94.100-84.rev.gaoland.net) joined #forth 13:47:42 --- quit: forther ("Leaving") 13:48:40 Hehe 13:48:54 Yeah. I could probably hack a client up, though the UI will definitely be quite Forthy. 13:49:08 * kc5tja has been meaning to try something like that anyway for years. 13:49:19 But, procrastination and higher, more visible projects always interfere. 13:49:28 higher priority, I meant. 13:49:33 nice, probably 10 people would be willing to use a frothy client 13:49:50 to capture the masses, we need something clicky with colors 13:50:01 Just like maybe 10 people would be willing to use the Kestrel. :) 13:50:11 Yes, true, but you gotta start somewhere. 13:50:16 :) 13:50:41 For that, we'll need something like AFIM -- ANSI Forth Interface Manager -- the Forth answer to Common Lisp's Interface Manager (CLIM). 13:50:43 --- quit: TreyB (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 13:59:42 --- part: james26 left #forth 14:00:56 --- join: snoopy_1711 (i=snoopy_1@dslb-084-058-134-187.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 14:03:30 --- quit: Snoopy42 (Nick collision from services.) 14:03:58 --- nick: snoopy_1711 -> Snoopy42 14:19:55 --- join: TreyB (n=trey@cpe-66-87-192-27.tx.sprintbbd.net) joined #forth 14:37:51 --- join: forther (n=forther@207.47.34.100.static.nextweb.net) joined #forth 14:58:44 --- quit: forther ("Leaving") 15:10:14 --- join: crest_ (n=crest@p5489BF91.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth 15:18:34 --- quit: crest__ (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 15:20:09 --- quit: Robert ("Night") 15:23:33 --- join: timlarson (n=timlarso@user-12l37rb.cable.mindspring.com) joined #forth 16:00:28 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 16:00:28 --- mode: ChanServ set +o tathi 16:05:26 gforth has unix/socket.fs -- looks like they expect it to work on linux, bsd, and cygwin... 16:06:50 Oh, sweet. I wasn't aware. 16:06:51 As usual. 16:07:09 oh. looks like the cygwin/bsd/linux bit is new in CVS 16:07:17 I wish they'd hurry up and release a new version already 16:08:20 Though you could probably pull the file from CVS and distribute it with your program; looks like it should work. 16:09:19 kc5tja: yeah, gforth has halfway decent documentation for the basic stuff, but they definitely expect you to look through /usr/share/gforth to see what all else they bundled with it. 16:10:48 Anton seems to have a thing about not documenting anything until he's perfectly satisfied with how it works :( 16:22:23 * kc5tja nods 16:22:25 --- join: skas_wk (n=skas@203-217-61-74.perm.iinet.net.au) joined #forth 16:34:40 --- join: doublec (n=doublec@202.180.114.137) joined #forth 16:58:00 Well, that was more gentle than I expected. 16:58:13 oops -- wrong channel. 16:58:31 No, right channel after all. Heh. :) 16:58:49 I was expecting some serious flames from clf regarding my suggestion. 17:07:23 --- quit: neceve ("Konversation terminated!") 17:17:45 --- join: forther (n=forther@207.47.34.100.static.nextweb.net) joined #forth 17:18:04 --- quit: forther (Client Quit) 17:47:58 heh. John Passaniti is such an ass. 17:48:30 Elizabeth: When in Rome... 17:48:36 Yeah. 17:48:45 John: I agree with the general premise, but with a big caveat: the Roman empire fell. 17:49:00 :) 17:49:02 Dude, I'm pretty convinced that the entirety of the comp.lang.forth community is so in-bred. 17:50:08 "factotum: Person employed to do all kinds of work." 17:50:10 Interesting. 17:50:31 ? 17:50:32 WANTED: FACTOTA -- GOOD BENEFITS. ENQUIRE INSIDE. 17:50:35 hehe 17:51:01 That's what popped up in my word of the day banner. 17:53:59 --- quit: tathi ("leaving") 17:58:39 --- quit: wossname (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 18:21:09 --- join: madgarden (n=madgarde@bas2-kitchener06-1096652694.dsl.bell.ca) joined #forth 18:58:07 --- join: H4ns (n=Hans@c-76-19-226-121.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) joined #forth 18:58:54 --- quit: H4n1 (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 19:21:26 --- join: edrx (i=edrx@189.25.93.231) joined #forth 19:40:02 --- join: wossname (n=w@CPE00195b252b77-CM001a666a6e78.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 19:56:22 --- join: microcape (n=microcap@c-68-42-66-199.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) joined #forth 19:59:13 --- part: microcape left #forth 20:20:49 --- quit: FMota () 20:47:22 --- join: Raystm2 (i=NanRay@c-24-8-127-241.hsd1.co.comcast.net) joined #forth 20:47:27 --- quit: Raystm2 (Remote closed the connection) 20:49:40 --- join: Raystm2 (i=NanRay@c-24-8-127-241.hsd1.co.comcast.net) joined #forth 20:50:33 --- part: Raystm2 left #forth 21:00:48 --- quit: doublec () 21:29:05 --- join: ygrek (i=user@gateway/tor/x-0184ad3bc8cd4682) joined #forth 21:50:23 --- quit: ygrek (Remote closed the connection) 21:52:47 --- quit: Off_Namuh (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 21:56:01 --- join: doublec (n=doublec@203-211-107-43.ue.woosh.co.nz) joined #forth 21:56:02 --- quit: doublec (Remote closed the connection) 23:27:03 --- join: unfy (n=IceChat7@ip72-198-202-215.om.om.cox.net) joined #forth 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/07.09.26