On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 12:12 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 10/18, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > So you're calling this without evidence, and actually even without
> > suspicion.
> I did check the ruleqa details on a few relevant tests first. The results
> are very inconsistent between submitters, but I'm not sure that means
> anything. And I'm not sure if the people with all zeros didn't submit this
> time or have their systems misconfigured.
If you hover over those zeroes, you'll see something like "0 of 0".
> > While you are certainly right that this must be set up correctly, I
> > believe the way you brought up the topic leaves room for improvement.
>
> Always, of course. I would love suggestions. I came here with the social
> skills of a geek with a concern, not a master dignitary. I would hope
> that's okay.
>
> > Anyway, with most mass-check contributors, this is the wrong list
> > anyway...
>
> I first asked in the IRC channel and waited a few hours. Then I posted to
> this list asking if it could be done. What is more appropriate?
Maybe this lost in translation (back and forth?), but the way your OP
came across was kind of rude, implying the systems are actually mis-
configured. To me at least.
There is a difference between asking whether there might be a problem
(expressing a concern, preferably backed-up by some facts), and outright
asking the contributors to check it (reasoning it would be "inconvenient
enough that it might have been skipped").
Becoming a mass-check contributor and maintaining the system is much
more inconvenient, than inheriting these options.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
