|
18 Aug 11 - 04:38 AM (#3208755) Subject: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: Will Fly Is it my imagination or is there some slight technical glitch with thread display on the 'Cat? I've posted to two threads this morning and - though the posts have appeared - there's been no movement of the thread to the top of the list. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 04:39 AM (#3208758) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: Will Fly Just posted the above - it's no. 18 in the list! |
|
18 Aug 11 - 05:49 AM (#3208777) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: GUEST,Jon The date/time was wrong for a short while yesterday and some posts were timed in the future. The time is still earlier than the last of the affected posts but it shouldn't be long before new posts bring a thread back to the top. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 06:13 AM (#3208779) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray I reckon the Large Hardon Collider's messing with the space-time continuum. I once experienced a similar thing recording what I thought was a pure viola improvisation in the chambers of the West Kennet Long Barrow but when the tape was revearsed I'd actually been playing the melody of the On the Buses theme, albeit backwards. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 06:15 AM (#3208780) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray I reckon the Large Hardon Collider... Genuine Typo! How cool is that?? My mind is boggling, though I don't suppose for one minute I'm the first... |
|
18 Aug 11 - 08:58 AM (#3208839) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: Nigel Parsons When passing people on the train, These narrow aisles can be a pain I curse my trolley tea-boy job Each time some client hits my knob I would wish these aisles could be much wider, To save my large hardon collider. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 09:05 AM (#3208842) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: Will Fly LOL! |
|
18 Aug 11 - 12:32 PM (#3208909) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: Tattie Bogle I tried twice to post to a thread yesterday, but neither time did my words of wisdom "take", so you'll just have to do without them (can't remember which thread or what I said now - couldn't have been important then!) |
|
18 Aug 11 - 12:33 PM (#3208910) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: Tattie Bogle Aha! Words have gone in this time, but thread has not moved: anyway just glad to see Mudcat back on stream. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 01:32 PM (#3208933) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: JohnInKansas The out of sequence posts at the top were posted yesterday (17 August) but dated today (18 August). The last one that had a time after the current "good" time will get passed so that new posts will show as being the newest, in about 3 or 4 hours. Any thread you post to since the mudcat clock was reset to the correct time will go to the same place in line, and as the clock passes the phony time for another that was stamped a day ahead, the "top of the line" will move up. I considered a "refresh" post for each of the ones that were "out of sequence" yesterday, to put them all in a lump, but since clones might have had plans to do something else I figured that moving the 80 or 90 threads affected might intrude on someone else's better idea. The out of sequence ones are down to about a dozen and will be gone without any intervention soon. John |
|
18 Aug 11 - 02:27 PM (#3208971) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: Tootler I've just posted responses to a couple of threads and they appeared at no. 6, so the number of out of time threads seems to be going down. Looking at the time stamps on the few threads at the top, they should start moving down in about 1.5 hours time. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 02:39 PM (#3208980) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: JohnInKansas So in a little over an hour the world will be a better place. I was always afraid it was going to take centuries for that. John |
|
18 Aug 11 - 03:10 PM (#3209005) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: Dave Hanson Threads below the line move to the top as soon as you post. Dave H |
|
18 Aug 11 - 03:27 PM (#3209021) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: JohnInKansas Dave - That's only because there was a lot less BS activity during the recovery. We were all to scared to be frivolous. (Some of our regular BS contributors may not have John |
|
18 Aug 11 - 03:47 PM (#3209033) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: MartinRyan Sssssssh! Regards |
|
18 Aug 11 - 04:17 PM (#3209056) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: Joe_F I, for one, was glad to see threads stay put after I posted to them, so that I didn't have to scroll down to reach the threads I hadn't seen yet. The misspelling of "hadron" is almost as old as the word. Back in the '60s, when I was working at The Physical Review, we received a MS entitled something like "Interaction of 340-MeV Pions with Hardons". Strange perversions are practiced by physicists at those big accelerators in the wee hours of the morning. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 06:45 PM (#3209132) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: JohnInKansas Joe_F - If you look at the names physicists give to some of their best-loved little particles (and their properties) you have to believe they're all a bunch of perverts, don't you. But when I was a kid half the adults in my neighborhood couldn't spell "alunyum" and we still argue over that one, I guess. John |
|
19 Aug 11 - 04:10 AM (#3209285) Subject: RE: Tech: Apparent non-movement of threads? From: Nigel Parsons John; A large percentage of the english speaking world still can't spell 'aluminium'. Cheers Nigel |