(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Mar 08 00:00 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Mar 08 00:00 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@rbnv8qskr8rgw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 00:00 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@freenode-448.p91.7dgmmg.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 00:00 | |
| *Schizogregarinida has quit (Connection closed) | Mar 08 03:09 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 03:30 | |
| *veratrate (~yi0ltdvpb@freenode-lcf.f5d.hl45mm.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 03:41 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/03/board-of-appeal-finds-that-vico-is-now.html?showComment=1678177514473#c8034609773749185779 | Mar 08 04:29 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal finds ViCo is now equivalent to in-person proceedings, and that G 1/21 "gold-standard" no longer applies (T 1158/20) - The IPKat | Mar 08 04:29 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | "13 Comments: | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | AnonymousTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 08:25:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | While we may all agree that the technical conditions for ViCos have somewhat improved during the last years, the Board seems not to acknowledge the whole bunch of "non-technical" issues related with ViCos, e.g. loss of body language, not being able to concentrate on a larger number of different tiles on a screen, overall concentration issues in staring at a screen for hours, nevertheless the risk of technical issues possibly leading | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | to disadvantages for parties, etc... | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Of course a Board will not really suffer from these issues, as they do not have any economic interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Coming to a decision is without any doubt easily possible in a ViCo. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | However, a party fighting for (or against) a patent has to have the right to be represented in oral proceedings as best as possible and the "gold standard" for this was, is and will remain in person hearings. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Therefore, especially in opposition proceedings, ViCos should only be conducted, if all parties agree. In my view it can not be part of the discretion of the Board to decide about the format of the hearing, as frankly said, they have no clue, how people feel "on the other side of the table (screen)" ... | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Reply | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Anon Y. MouseTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 09:03:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | I fear that discussion of this decision is going to turn into another fight between factions with differing views on the acceptability of ViCo. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | However, regardless of one's stance on ViCo, there is a bigger issue at stake here. What is at stake is none other than the Rule of Law at the EPO. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | It is established in the Case Law and practice of the Boards that a referral to the EBA *must* be made in cases where the Board considers it necessary to deviate from an earlier decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. And yet, in this case, the Board at hand has taken it upon itself merely to declare that the reasoning in G 1/21 no longer applies, so that no further referral is necessary. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | To be perfectly frank: this is an outrage, regardless of one's views on the use of ViCo. And, what's worse, there seems to be no recourse for users of the system against Boards going rogue like this, except in the very limited circumstances foreseen in the Petition procedure. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Reply | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Replies | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Proof of the puddingTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 14:48:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | I can only agree that the grounds for Petitions for Review are too limited. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | In this regard, relevant provisions of the RPBA are Articles 21 and 23. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | RPBA Article 21 | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Deviation from an earlier decision or opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Should a Board consider it necessary to deviate from an interpretation or explanation of the Convention contained in an earlier decision or opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal according to Article 112, paragraph 1, EPC, the question shall be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | RPBA Article 23 | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Binding nature of the Rules of Procedure | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | These Rules of Procedure shall be binding upon the Boards of Appeal, provided that they do not lead to a situation which would be incompatible with the spirit and purpose of the Convention. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | By deviating from the interpretation in G1/21 without referring questions to the EBA, the Board in T 1158/20 seems to have breached both of these provisions. It is therefore astonishing to think that, on its own, this does not provide grounds for a Petition. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Perhaps the Board was canny in asking the representative of the appellant to confirm that "he had no objections based on the right to be heard" (point 1.4.5 of the Reasons for the Decision). This is because the Board's failure to refer questions to the EBA could, on one view, be interpreted at a violation of Art 113 EPC. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Anon Y. MouseTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 15:11:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | @Proof: it is interesting to note that the Minutes only indicate that the parties "confirmed the proper functioning of the videoconferencing technology during the oral proceedings", and do not say anything about observation of the right to be heard. My cynical side therefore wonders whether point 1.4.5 of the Reasons for the Decision is entirely accurate. However, even if it is not, the apparent failure of the Appellant to object un | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | der Rule 106 to the format of the hearing would probably doom any Petition to failure on formal grounds. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Reply | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | GreengrocerTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 09:37:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Can we therefore look forward to Technical Boards in other areas deciding to arbitrarily set aside decisions of the Enlarged Board? For starters, I wonder if any Board might be so bold as to declare that G 3/19 is no longer applicable and revert to the position under G 2/12 and G 2/13. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Reply | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | DXThomasTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 09:48:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Comment part 1 | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | T 1158/20 might illustrate a new line of thinking within the boards, but another recently published decision also goes in the same direction: T 1624/20. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | In both decisions the boards refer to Art 15a(1) RPBA20 giving them the discretion of holding OP by ViCo irrespective of what has been said in G 1/21. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Those decisions show that it has become a necessity to align the wording of Art 15a(1) RPBA20 to the reasons given in G 1/21. Another possibility could be to define how, in the framework of G 1/21, the discretion could be exercised in a reasonable and reliable way for parties. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | It has become a lottery whether OP before the boards are held in-person or by ViCo. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | In T 1158/20 and in T 1624/20, the boards seem to have added a new criterion to be justified by the party requiring OP by ViCo: the requesting party has to show why an OP by ViCo would not be “appropriate” in the actual case. Whilst the term “appropriate” is to be found in four places in G 1/21, cf. reasons 19, 37, 39 and 43, it is nowhere to be found in reasons 48 and 49 of G 1/21. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | In reasons 48, one reads “If in a particular case a ViCo is not suitable, the OP will need to be held in person”. The EBA did not define in general when an OP by ViCo is not suitable. It simply added that “In the case underlying the referral, the Board expressed the view that the reasons brought forward why a ViCo would not be suitable for this particular case were not convincing”. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | In reasons 49, the EBA held that “there must also be circumstances specific to the case that justify the decision not to hold the OP in person”. It then added that “These circumstances should relate to limitations and impairments affecting the parties’ ability to attend OP in person at the premises of the EPO”. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | G 1/21 established a double condition for OP to be held by ViCo. The parties should be impaired in coming to the premises of the EPO and only then the case should be suitable for holding the OP by ViCo. The EBA never said that the EPO or the boards can have their own medical criteria when deciding to hold OP by ViCo. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | In reasons 45 of G 1/21, the EBA held that the “gold standard” for OP before the boards is OP in person and not OP by ViCo. It is only after having established this fact, that the EBA decided under which circumstances OP could be held by ViCo against the wish of the parties. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | In both T 1158/20 and in T 1624/20, it is clear that parties were not imparted in coming to the premises of the EPO. There were thus no reasons for not holding OP in person. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | That parties are getting better acquainted with OP by ViCo is not a reason to claim that OP by ViCo are equivalent to OP in person, or in other words to ignore the gold standard established in G 1/21. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | It is for parties to be given the choice of the form of the OP. If all parties agree to OP by ViCo there is no problem with it. If one party wants a mixed mode OP or if both parties request OP in person, it is not for a deciding body of the EPO to ignore those requests and quash them for reasons of “discretion”. This is not exercising discretion, but acting arbitrarily and therefore not acceptable. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Reply | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | DXThomasTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 09:51:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Comment part 2 | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | It is bordering on bad faith, when in T 1158/20, the board claims that it was correct in T 996/20 to hold the OP in person on 02.11.2022 and it was also correct to deny OP in person on 27.11.2022 as in both cases it was a discretionary decision. The board claims that it had a different composition in those cases. The problem is that in both cases the same chairman and rapporteur were acting and only the legal member was different. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | In T 1624/20, I would allow myself to claim that the board wanted primarily to protect itself. The same manifestly also applies for T 1158/20, whereby the aspect of convenience for the board could also have played a role as in one case it accepted OP in person and in the other case it refused OP in person. The COVID-19 situation has been steadily improving and it is difficult to justify not holding OP in person at the end of Novembe | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | r, but at the beginning of the same month. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | In T 2341/16, commented on another blog, OP scheduled for 20.05.2022 were cancelled after the announcement of the applicant that he would not be present at the PO. Prior to this announcement the BA refused to hold an OP by ViCo and applied the gold standard in matters of OP as foreseen in G 1/21. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | In T 1708/19, commented on another blog, OP took place on 30.06.2022. End of June was just the period in which the board considered in T 2791/19 that the infection rate has increased drastically. This did not withhold the board in T 1708/19, which must also have been aware, should it actually have been the case, of the increasing number of infections, to hold OP in person. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | In T 2791/19, commented on another blog, the board refused OP in person and held OP by ViCo on 26.07.2022. It is interesting to note that in T 2791/19 it was again the same chair and rapporteur than in T 1158/20 and T 996/20. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | I leave any conclusions about those coincidences to the readership. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The EBA has not indicated any circumstance in which the “gold-standard” can be dispensed with once the conditions of the pandemic and the impairment of travel is not any longer present. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | It is more than doubtful that the discretion of the boards goes as far as to decide by themselves when there is a risk of contamination or not by the COVID-19 virus. As long as the EBA has not done so, it is not for a board to decide, most probably for its own convenience, to hold or not OP in person in the absence of any impairment as to travel or access for instance to the Isar building of the EPO. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The EPO premises might benefit from a statute of ex-territoriality, but they are not on another planet. It can thus be expected that they conform to the COVID regulations valid for the places in which the EPO has buildings. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | I would allow myself in stating that the present boards can be considered to have had a “dynamic interpretation” of what is said in G 1/21. I would in any case need more reasons to justify this attitude and not simply coming up with the “discretion” given in Art 15a(1) RPBA20. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | One question remains unanswered: what is the legal basis allowing the members of a board not to sit together when deciding on the fate of an application or of a patent. cf. Art 15a(3) RPBA20. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The same applies mutatis mutandis to deciding bodies in first instance, in which OP can only be held in form of a ViCo. In view of the wording of Art 116, which does not make any difference between OP before the first instance and the boards, the legal basis for mandatory OP by ViCo appears also to be missing. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The only mechanism known to amend the EPC is Art 172. Art 164(2) puts strict limits to amendments of the Implementing Rules by the AC. The EPC cannot be amended by secondary legislation. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t201624fu1.html | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Reply | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | AnonymousTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 11:26:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | I wonder if this is yet another all-too-predictable symptom of the "reform" of the Boards of Appeal. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | As soon as membership of the Boards became subject to reappointment, and that reappointment became subject to meeting (non-public) performance criteria, it was self-evident to even the most naive and optimistic observer that this could turn into a tool to "encourage" Boards to issue the "right" decisions in order to please the EPO management. This has been all too evident in numerous other TBA and EBA decisions in recent years. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | When it comes to judicial "independence", what's good for Viktor Orbán is good for the EPO management, it seems. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Reply | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | AnonymousTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 15:21:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | I'll bet the 'fors' and 'againsts' regarding ViCo are strongly correlated with living in Germany where attendance at in-person hearings is convenient and living outside Germany where attendance at in-person hearings is not convenient. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Personally I'm all for ViCo hearings, and I should imagine 99% of my clients will be, in view of the significantly reduced costs and disruption. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Reply | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Replies | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | AnonymousTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 15:56:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Your point of view is to a certain extent understandable, but it has to be the decision of the parties in which form OP are held. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | If your client is not prepared to pay for a trip to Munich, fair enough, but it is not correct for you to impose this view on the others parties and for a board to decide in a discretionary manner in which form the OP has to be held. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | AnonymousTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 16:01:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The problem is more general and lies in the fact that the RPBA20 have given a great deal of discretion to the boards. Some boards use it with precaution, some literally abuse it. There is no mechanism insuring that the boards exercise their discretion in a correct, reasonable and predictable way. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | From a procedural point of view, going to appeal has become a lottery. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Depending on where a file ends in appeal, form of OP, deletion, and combination of claims or more or less strict application of Art 13 (1 and 2) RPBA20 are purely depending of the whim of the board. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Substantial aspects are not immune either. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Some boards deal with the absence of a measurement method as a clarity problem which can be evacuated under G 3/14, whilst other take the bother and look into the problem. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | A similar problem occurs when a board has the nerve to claim that no evidence is necessary to prove common general knowledge know to a member of the board. It is enough by itself! the board members are holding "the truth". Try to do this as a party. The board will promptly bring you on track! | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | It seems that the 28 TBA are evolving into small baronies that are not interested in what is happening in the board next door. We can hear the chair claiming “my board, my castle”. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The chair of the boards does not seem interested in what is going on in the various boards as long as the production figures are increasing. In this respect he is on a par with the present and previous tenant of the 10th floor. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The whole system of the BA at the EPO has to be reviewed and the boards have to become truly independent of the management of the EPO. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The balance of probabilities is such that it can be concluded that the board are only independent by name and appearance. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Independence is, alas, not only a question of appearance. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | AnonymousTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 16:24:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | @anon 15:56 - "but it has to be the decision of the parties in which form OP are held." is not established as correct - it's exactly the issue that's being debated. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | And given that OP typically only involves two parties, it's foreseeable that consensus will often not been reached, particularly where one party foresees some tactical advantage over the other party by requesting OP in-person. In which circumstances, what happens then when the parties can't decide? Can the board exercise discretion then? If not, then perhaps just having a blanket decision on how OP will be conducted is better. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Reply | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | AnonymousTuesday, 7 March 2023 at 18:25:00 GMT | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | @anon 16:24 | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | If one party wants OP by ViCo and the other OP in person, the OP should be held in mixed mode. Where is the difficulty? Each party has the form it wishes. Why should the board have any discretion left? | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | That Business Europe does not like mixed mode OP is its own problem, not the problem of all other parties. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | If both parties agree on OP by ViCo or on OP in person, the board should not have any discretion in deciding the form of the OP. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | It is not for the board to arbitrarily impose to the parties a given form of OP just because it thinks that it has the “discretion” to decide on the form of OP. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | By claiming it has the discretion to decide the form of OP, one could even say that the board shows some prejudice for or against a party or even both parties. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Convenience of the board has nothing to do when deciding the form of OP. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | An objection under R 106 will most probably be dismissed, but one day the EBA will have to come with something more convincing than to say that the parties having been heard about the form of the OP (or the non-admissibility of evidence or requests), everything is OK. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | After all the parties know better than the boards what is good for them. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | It is very presumptuous for a board (or the president of the office) to know what is best for the parties. | Mar 08 04:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Reply" | Mar 08 04:29 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.epo.org | EPO - T 1624/20 (Élément de structure extrados/CONSTELLIUM) of 13.12.2022 | Mar 08 04:33 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > The article singles out Microsoft's software for rejection. It says | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > nothing about Apple's software, which is roughly equally unjust. | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > They are not exactly equivalent, but each does important injustices | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > that the other doesn't do (or not that we know of). | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > My experience says that this is likely to have the effect of teaching | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > people that Apple is superior. | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > I was also disappointed that it doesn't criticize nonfree software | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > as unethical. Did I overlook something to that effect? | Mar 08 05:07 |
| schestowitz[TR] | On the basis of ethics, in various senses, Microsoft is by far worse. To spare a lot of examples (history of 50 years almost), let's just say that Microsoft's attack on computing in general, on computer users in general, and on GNU/Linux is not comparable to what any other company did. Not even close. | Mar 08 05:07 |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 07:46 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://ubuntu.com//blog/what-is-real-time-linux-part-iii">What is real-time Linux? Part III</a></h5> | Mar 08 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>Welcome to the final post of this three-part series on real-time Linux. As market adoption of real-time computing continues to rise, real-time in the Linux kernel is emerging as a valuable solution on the software side.</p> | Mar 08 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>A real-time Linux kernel on its own, however, will not necessarily make a system real-time. We clarified this point in Part I and listed the common misconceptions and stack components. We then concluded Part I by discussing the role of real-time Linux in target verticals and applications, from industrial factories and telco workloads to automotive and healthcare.</p> | Mar 08 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>Part II tackled how to achieve real-time in the kernel by introducing User Space to Kernel Space transitions and preemption. This is the final chapter of the series, where we will start by discussing the challenges to bringing preemption into the Linux kernel and the key benefits of the PREEMPT_RT real-time patches.</p> | Mar 08 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 09:46 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-What is real-time Linux? Part III | Ubuntu | Mar 08 09:47 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 09:47 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://labs.ripe.net/author/robert-allen/how-to-ensure-time-security-across-a-global-network/">How to Ensure Time Security Across a Global Network</a></h5> | Mar 08 09:47 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 09:47 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>In this Netnod industry Q&A, we find out how NTS is used to ensure time security across a global network of devices. We talk with Christian Storm and Axel Keskikangas, developers at Axis Communications, a global provider of network solutions in video surveillance, access control, intercom, and audio systems.</p> | Mar 08 09:47 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 09:47 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 09:47 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-labs.ripe.net | How to Ensure Time Security Across a Global Network | RIPE Labs | Mar 08 09:47 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 09:50 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://www.preining.info/blog/2023/03/end-of-support-and-updates-to-the-kde-plasma-debian-builds/">End of support and updates to the KDE/Plasma Debian builds</a></h5> | Mar 08 09:50 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 09:50 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>It has been many years that I have provided up-to-date builds of KDE/Plasma for Debian stable, testing, unstable. It is now more than a year that I don’t use Debian anymore. Time to send this off.</p> | Mar 08 09:50 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 09:50 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 09:50 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.preining.info | End of support and updates to the KDE/Plasma Debian builds | There and back again | Mar 08 09:50 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 10:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://blog.powerdns.com/2023/03/07/powerdns-recursor-4-8-3-released/">PowerDNS Recursor 4.8.3 Released</a></h5> | Mar 08 10:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 10:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>This release is a maintenance release. The most important fixes concern the serve-stale functionality which could cause intermittent high CPU load. The serve-stale function is disabled by default.</p> | Mar 08 10:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 10:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 10:03 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-blog.powerdns.com | PowerDNS Recursor 4.8.3 Released | PowerDNS Blog | Mar 08 10:03 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 10:12 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://www.r-bloggers.com/2023/03/coding-the-cost-effectiveness-acceptability-curve-ceac-in-r/">Coding the Cost Effectiveness Acceptability Curve (CEAC) in R</a></h5> | Mar 08 10:12 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 10:12 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>The cost effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) is a tool used to describe the output of a probabilistic sensitivity analysis conducted on a model used in economic evaluations of health technologies. It communicates the probability of cost effectiveness conditional on our willingness to pay threshold for each unit of effectiveness or QALY gained. while this blog post will not provide the | Mar 08 10:12 |
| schestowitz[TR] | best treatment of theory behind the CEAC it will provide you some information on how to compute them in R.</p> | Mar 08 10:12 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 10:12 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 10:12 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Coding the Cost Effectiveness Acceptability Curve (CEAC) in R | R-bloggers | Mar 08 10:12 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 10:12 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 10:13 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://klarasystems.com/articles/freebsd-vs-linux-tracing-and-troubleshooting/">FreeBSD vs. Linux: Tracing and Troubleshooting Open Source Systems</a></h5> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>When troubleshooting a Linux or FreeBSD system, you need to be able to probe the system to find answers as to why it is behaving in a particular way. Often, it isn’t possible to replicate problems in a sandbox—so you need to gain an insight into what is happening on a production system in a non-intrusive manner. In this article, we’ll provide an overview of some of the basic tools and | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | introduce the FreeBSD equivalents of common Linux tracing and troubleshooting tools.</p> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Mar 08 10:15 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-klarasystems.com | FreeBSD vs. Linux - Tracing and Troubleshooting Open Source Systems | Mar 08 10:15 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://news.umich.edu/u-m-researchers-aim-to-bring-humans-back-into-the-loop-as-ai-use-and-misuse-rises/">U-M researchers aim to bring humans back into the loop, as AI use and misuse rises</a></h5> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>The researchers say everybody will be increasingly affected by so-called smart machines that emulate human capabilities, at home, in the workplace, in the legal system and other spheres of society. There is no reason these machines need to be operating in the world before problems are recognized—they could be corrected or even abandoned if caught early, or designed to mitigate their occur | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | rence from the start.</p> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>“In the short run, our approach may simply limit their negative impacts, but in the long run, it may lead to the development and deployment of AI systems based on their benefits and costs for our society,” Robert said.</p> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 10:15 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-news.umich.edu | U-M researchers aim to bring humans back into the loop, as AI use and misuse rises | University of Michigan News | Mar 08 10:15 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 10:23 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>This is why people like designers and engineers hate those thirty minute blocks between meetings. It’s just enough time to let your mind settle down before you have to jump to the next meeting.</p> | Mar 08 10:23 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 10:23 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 10:23 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://blog.jim-nielsen.com/2023/oasis-of-quiet/">An Oasis of Quiet</a></h5> | Mar 08 10:23 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 10:23 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>This is why people like designers and engineers hate those thirty minute blocks between meetings. It’s just enough time to let your mind settle down before you have to jump to the next meeting.</p> | Mar 08 10:23 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 10:23 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 10:23 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-blog.jim-nielsen.com | An Oasis of Quiet - Jim Nielsen’s Blog | Mar 08 10:23 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 10:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://jvns.ca/blog/2023/03/06/possible-reasons-8-bit-bytes/">Some possible reasons for 8-bit bytes</a></h5> | Mar 08 10:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 10:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>There aren’t any definitive answers in this post, but I asked on Mastodon and here are some potential reasons I found for the 8-bit byte. I think the answer is some combination of these reasons.</p> | Mar 08 10:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 10:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 10:29 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-jvns.ca | Some possible reasons for 8-bit bytes | Mar 08 10:29 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 10:30 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://jpieper.com/2023/03/06/moteus-external-connector-pin-selection/">moteus external connector pin selection</a></h5> | Mar 08 10:30 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 10:30 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>When working on a more ground up revision of the controller, I wanted to improve that situation to expose more connectivity options on still a relatively limited connector set. The idea was to use 2 connectors, one which has 5 I/O pins and the other with 4 I/O pins. The onboard encoder SPI would still be accessible on the larger connector to use for at least one external SPI encoder, but ho | Mar 08 10:30 |
| schestowitz[TR] | w much other functionality could be crammed into the remaining pins? To start, lets see what possible options there are in the current firmware and supported by the STM32G4 microcontroller that moteus uses: [...]</p> | Mar 08 10:30 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 10:30 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 10:30 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-jpieper.com | moteus external connector pin selection | A Modicum of Fun | Mar 08 10:30 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | 0/ | Mar 08 10:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | 0/ | Mar 08 10:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 10:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://www.databreaches.net/medusa-claims-responsibility-for-minneapolis-public-schools-encryption-event-provides-proof-of-how-much-data-they-accessed/">Medusa claims responsibility for Minneapolis Public Schools’ “encryption event,” provides proof of how much data they accessed</a> [iophk: Windows TCO]</h5> | Mar 08 10:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 10:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>MPS’s public disclosures and lack of full transparency since the attack has incurred criticism from this site and others. MPS has been behind the public relations 8-ball on this since February. It’s time for them to really be forthright with employees and families about how bad this breach was.</p> | Mar 08 10:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 10:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 10:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Mar 08 10:40 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.databreaches.net/medusa-claims-responsibility-for-minneapolis-public-schools-encryption-event-provides-proof-of-how-much-data-they-accessed/ ) | Mar 08 10:40 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 10:41 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2023/03/prompt-injection-attacks-on-large-language-models.html">Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Models</a></h5> | Mar 08 10:41 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 10:41 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>This is a good survey on prompt injection attacks on large language models (like ChatGPT).</p> | Mar 08 10:41 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 10:41 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 10:41 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Models - Schneier on Security | Mar 08 10:41 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@cbcfptirpkfqa.irc) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 11:05 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | x https://blog.adafruit.com/2023/03/06/macintosh-1984-promotional-video-with-bill-gates-marchintosh/ | Mar 08 11:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | # did not click | Mar 08 11:32 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-blog.adafruit.com | Macintosh 1984 Promotional Video – with Bill Gates! #MARCHintosh « Adafruit Industries – Makers, hackers, artists, designers and engineers! | Mar 08 11:32 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 11:43 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | x https://www.darkreading.com/application-security/why-financial-institutions-must-double-down-on-open-source-investments | Mar 08 12:01 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.darkreading.com | Why Financial Institutions Must Double Down on Open Source Investments | Mar 08 12:01 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 12:04 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 13:10 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Mar 08 13:34 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 13:35 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@nqkitbgnqjad4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 13:36 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 14:25 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://original.antiwar.com/brett_wilkins/2023/03/05/youll-be-hearing-from-me-as-long-as-im-here-daniel-ellsberg-vows-after-terminal-cancer-diagnosis/">‘You’ll Be Hearing From Me as Long as I’m Here,’ Daniel Ellsberg Vows After Terminal Cancer Diagnosis</a></h5> | Mar 08 14:25 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 14:25 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>Whistleblowers and activists hailed a man one anti-nuclear campaigner called "a change-maker, a disrupter, and an icon."</p> | Mar 08 14:25 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>RootsAction co-founder and director Norman Solomon, a longtime friend and collaborator, told Common Dreams that "words can’t really convey what Dan Ellsberg has meant to the world, and along the way what he has been wonderfully giving to countless people he has reached out to and who’ve reached out to him."</p> | Mar 08 14:25 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 14:25 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 14:25 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-original.antiwar.com | 'You'll Be Hearing From Me as Long as I'm Here,' Daniel Ellsberg Vows After Terminal Cancer Diagnosis - Antiwar.com Original | Mar 08 14:25 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 14:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://ubuntu.com//blog/canonical-joins-the-eclipse-foundations-software-defined-vehicle-working-group">Canonical joins the Eclipse Foundation’s Software Defined Vehicle working group</a></h5> | Mar 08 14:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 14:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>Canonical is excited to announce it is now an official member of the Eclipse Software Defined Vehicle Working Group (SDV WG). Eclipse SDV focuses on software-defined vehicles (SDVs) and pushes innovations in automotive-grade solutions using open-source software. By offering an open technology platform, automotive companies can use and integrate open standards and powerful developer experience for t | Mar 08 14:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | heir own software development.</p> | Mar 08 14:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 14:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 14:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Mar 08 14:33 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Canonical joins the Eclipse Foundation’s Software Defined Vehicle working group | Ubuntu | Mar 08 14:33 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 14:46 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 14:48 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Mar 08 14:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://yle.fi/a/74-20021299">Helsinki Airport to toss out travel-sized bottle requirements by summer</a></h5> | Mar 08 14:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Mar 08 14:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>The security change will only apply to passengers departing from Helsinki. Travellers departing from Finavia's regional airports and passengers arriving to Helsinki from outside the EU for a layover flight to a destination also outside the EU will continue to be subject to the same liquid regulations.</p> | Mar 08 14:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Mar 08 14:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Mar 08 14:49 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-yle.fi | Helsinki Airport to toss out travel-sized bottle requirements by summer | News | Yle Uutiset | Mar 08 14:49 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 15:24 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 15:48 | |
| *pseudofarcy (~mgagne@freenode-i6m.hv7.g8ab7j.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 16:22 | |
| *pseudofarcy (~mgagne@freenode-i6m.hv7.g8ab7j.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 16:22 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 16:28 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 16:29 | |
| *pseudofarcy (~mgagne@freenode-i6m.hv7.g8ab7j.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 16:51 | |
| *pseudofarcy (~mgagne@freenode-i6m.hv7.g8ab7j.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 16:52 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 16:53 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 16:54 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 17:03 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 17:04 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 17:12 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 17:13 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 17:22 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 17:24 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 17:31 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 17:32 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 17:40 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 17:43 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 17:48 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 17:50 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 17:59 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 17:59 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 18:13 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 18:14 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 18:22 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 18:22 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 18:33 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 18:34 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 18:41 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 18:42 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 18:49 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 18:49 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 19:02 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 19:02 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 19:16 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 19:16 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 19:27 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 19:27 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 19:35 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 19:35 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 19:40 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 19:40 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 19:46 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 19:47 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 19:53 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 19:53 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 20:02 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 20:02 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 20:07 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 20:07 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 20:13 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 20:14 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 20:17 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 20:18 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 20:24 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 20:24 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 20:28 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 20:29 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 20:34 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 20:35 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 20:38 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 20:39 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 20:45 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 20:46 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 20:50 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 20:51 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 20:57 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 20:57 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:02 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:02 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:08 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:08 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:12 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:12 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:17 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:17 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:20 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:21 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:27 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:28 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:31 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:31 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:37 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:38 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:41 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:42 | |
| *monkeyshine (~zero@freenode-6a4.rvc.t0hcj2.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:45 | |
| *monkeyshine (~zero@freenode-6a4.rvc.t0hcj2.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:46 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:47 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:48 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:51 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:52 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 21:57 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 21:58 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 22:00 | |
| *veratrate (~yi0ltdvpb@freenode-lcf.f5d.hl45mm.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 22:01 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 22:01 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 22:06 | |
| *veratrate (~yi0ltdvpb@freenode-lcf.f5d.hl45mm.IP) has joined #techbytes | Mar 08 22:47 | |
| *preoccupiedness (~sid10559@freenode-7ni.0lr.7hdkeu.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 22:47 | |
| *veratrate (~yi0ltdvpb@freenode-lcf.f5d.hl45mm.IP) has left #techbytes | Mar 08 22:47 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) | Mar 08 23:05 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.