Techrights logo

IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Tuesday, March 16, 2021

(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.

*Condor_ (~freenode@e1.nixmagic.com) has joined #techbytesMar 16 01:08
*liberty_box has quit (*.net *.split)Mar 16 01:12
*TechBytesBot has quit (*.net *.split)Mar 16 01:12
*Condor has quit (*.net *.split)Mar 16 01:12
*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesMar 16 01:19
schestowitz__https://www.2daygeek.com/configure-static-ip-address-in-ubuntu/Mar 16 03:47
*TechBytesBot (~b0t@techrights.org) has joined #techbytesMar 16 03:48
TechBytesBotHello World! I'm TechBytesBot running phIRCe v0.75Mar 16 03:48
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)Mar 16 05:37
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytesMar 16 06:48
*genr8_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)Mar 16 08:20
*genr8_ (~genr8_@unaffiliated/genbtc) has joined #techbytesMar 16 08:23
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/jamesabernard/status/1371551154056749058Mar 16 08:58
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@jamesabernard: @RuaisLampSilog @nixcraft Look at who in control of the Linux foundation, the governing body of the Linux kernel &… https://t.co/xzs17qIFoXMar 16 08:58
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@jamesabernard: @RuaisLampSilog @nixcraft Look at who in control of the Linux foundation, the governing body of the Linux kernel &… https://t.co/xzs17qIFoXMar 16 08:58
schestowitz__"Look at who in control of the Linux foundation, the governing body of the Linux kernel & who pays Linus? The board is stacked with ex-microsft employees etc see http://techrights.org for more info"Mar 16 08:58
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | Welcome to TechrightsMar 16 08:58
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1371550304865509385Mar 16 08:58
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: "In December 2020 it was reported that the Swedish data protection authority had imposed the first GDPR-based fine… https://t.co/3XnQzHDli6Mar 16 08:58
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: "In December 2020 it was reported that the Swedish data protection authority had imposed the first GDPR-based fine… https://t.co/3XnQzHDli6Mar 16 08:58
schestowitz__"Mar 16 08:58
schestowitz__"In December 2020 it was reported that the Swedish data protection authority had imposed the first GDPR-based fine for lack of adequate protection of sensitive data stored in a US‑based cloud platform after the Schrems II decision." http://techrights.org/2021/03/15/epoleaks-report-march-2021-part-7/ @maxschremsMar 16 08:59
schestowitz__ @smetsjpMar 16 08:59
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | EPO and Microsoft Collude to Break the Law — Part VII: Lipstick on a Pig… | TechrightsMar 16 08:59
schestowitz__"Mar 16 08:59
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1371549306377895941Mar 16 08:59
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: SafeHarbour https://t.co/eWmFdseC5i Lipstick on a Pig @maxschrems https://t.co/6AaiyBqDJoMar 16 08:59
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> techrights.org | EPO and Microsoft Collude to Break the Law — Part VII: Lipstick on a Pig… | TechrightsMar 16 08:59
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: SafeHarbour https://t.co/eWmFdseC5i Lipstick on a Pig @maxschrems https://t.co/6AaiyBqDJoMar 16 08:59
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1371549013972029444Mar 16 08:59
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: SafeHarbour https://t.co/yFBoulruYb @maxschremsMar 16 08:59
*GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytesMar 16 09:56
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)Mar 16 09:57
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytesMar 16 11:15
*GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)Mar 16 11:17
*rianne__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)Mar 16 12:39
*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesMar 16 12:39
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Mar 16 18:11
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Mar 16 18:12
*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesMar 16 18:32
*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesMar 16 18:32
schestowitz__https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/epo-declares-eeqe-format-went-very.htmlMar 16 18:46
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | EPO declares eEQE format went "very smoothly", but do candidates agree? - The IPKatMar 16 18:46
schestowitz__"Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__JRSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:09:00 GMTMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__It is the opposite of "smooth". Chaotic and confusion comes to mind. For paper D - candidates had no access to EN or FR version for 30 minutes. They started to randomly add times 10 minutes towards to the end of D1, shorten breaks for other parts. The language issued appeared again in the 2nd part.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__For paper A, it was full of contradictory and confusing statements.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__Paper B was in my view not doable in 3.5 hours. The formatting of claims were horrendous. It took me 30 minutes to copy claims over to the text editor and correct formatting. We then had 3 independent claims, 3rd party observations and a list of errors from missing figure labels to NOT indicating amendments in the client's amended letter.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__Paper C was also a horrendous exam online. The split created a host of issues and the paper became very unbalanced. Further, the claim formatting was also a major issue. It seems that the committee did not sufficiently consider the split and adapted the paper appropriately.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:10:00 GMTMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__NO where near smooth. They are on another planet. Every candidate I spoken to had issues with the eEQE. Candidates are NOT against online exams but not with this current system. It was far too complex for no reason.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__BeckySunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:12:00 GMTMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__Its actually quite insulting to suggest that the system was running smoothly. They didn't even wait for candidates to provide feedback via the EPO feedback system before declaring major success. Candidates feedback and opinions are ignored or brushed aside as always.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:13:00 GMTMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__Its clear the papers this year were not adapted at all for the e-EQE online format, particularly papers B and C. Paper A was not well written either. It does led me to believe that checks were not sufficiently carried out with the papers this year.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__JonSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:16:00 GMTMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__The EPO has shot themselves in the foot. I'm glad IPKAT have provided an article on this because the EPO is trying to make it sound like everything was fine to everyone else in the profession.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__The truth is that the wiseflow software is not suitable for e-EQEs. You can't highlight, compare documents on the same page, can't copy without losing formatting, not allowed to open more than 9 tabs or the software will crash, can't use common functionality on keyboards such as ALT+TAB. Allowing parts to be printed but not others?Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__We had 3 mocks (all very late) and as far as I can tell, not many of these were fixed.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__I want like to know what the EPO think is "smooth" about this year's format.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:18:00 GMTMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__I was hugely affected by the language-gate in D1. It carried through to the next day in paper A as I was so anxious and worried that night. The EPO didn't release a statement until the day after to acknowledge their blunder.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:20:00 GMTMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__A very embarrassing statement by the EPO.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__There are some positives doing it online but I'm afraid to say that my experience has been largely negative with the current eEQE system. They need to keep the system simple but the EPO has managed to make difficult year for candidates into a horrendous week.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:22:00 GMTMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__PR gone wrong.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__Thanks to the EPO PR department as this will be a classic textbook study for future candidates taking PR lessons.Mar 16 18:47
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:26:00 GMTMar 16 18:47
schestowitz__It was not just Paper D. I did not have access to Paper B in English for several minutes.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:27:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__When you have experienced tutors struggling with the papers this year i.e. papers B and C, it appears to me that these papers were not adapted properly for online.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__There are also numerous IT issues like wiseflow crashing and printing issues as well as the the language problem in D1. Its far from "smooth" and I would say the majority of candidates would consider it a "rough" experience.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__NOT ONSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:30:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__A disappointing statement by the EPO which clearly does not resonate with candidates and even tutors' experience of the system during the EQE week. They should take down that ridiculous statement.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:32:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__Can't help but laugh that they think the language issue was only a few minutes. It took 30 minutes for many candidates to resolve - that's 30% of time available in D1.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__They didn't even mention about those candidates who got booted off the system randomly despite being promised the extra 30 minutes. Where was that in the statement?Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__JoJoSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:56:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__With this press release, I fear the EPO will disregard many of the concerns candidates have legitimately raised about the softwareMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:58:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__Absolutely disagree that the e-EQE format ran smoothly. What were they thinking releasing a statement like this when it is not the truth at all.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__MichaelSunday, 14 March 2021 at 13:02:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__It is a wholly inappropriate statement to make. My firm and myself will shortly be submitting a formal complaint to the Exam Sect about the lack of adaption of the exam papers as well as the wiseflow system in general.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 15:33:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__I think the examination process was well organized and the EQE board did their best as usually. Every year all involved witness a comparable amount of anger and bold statements.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__RepliesMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__    AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:08:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__    There is no doubt that they did the best they could. It was not an easy task. However, stating that the eEQE was a success is simply not true and quite frankly an insensitive and disrespectful statement towards this year's candidates. The software was not suitable for online patent exams. Simple functions like strikethrough, which I am pretty sure a patent attorney uses daily, were not available, not to mention that highlightingMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__in the pdfs was also not possible and neither was annotating. The side-by-side view was far from perfect and it was very time consuming to navigate from page 1 to page 12 as one could not just scroll down as in a "normal" pdf, but had to scroll down to the bottom of the page and then click to get to the next page (and repeat for every single page). The formatting in the editor was completely lost if one wanted to copy a passage fromMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__one section in the editor to another. All the issues reported during Mock 1, 2, and 3 clearly showed that the system was not ready, but nothing was done to fix it. One can only hope that a different software will be chosen for next year's EQE and also that the exam papers will be properly tested under exam conditions using the software before deciding to use them as exam papers.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__    AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:47:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__    I'm not sure saying the e-EQE running smoothly this year is accurate at all. The DI situation has never happened before and papers A, B and C seemed like they have been through proper checks. There were lots of errors and mistakes in the papers.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__    I don't think it is an easy task but equally, they had a whole year to sort this. The PEB exams were held in less time and more successfully. It is simply down to the online format being much simpler. Why create an over-complicated system where both parties (EPO and candidates) will only suffer.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__    AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:51:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__    papers A, B and C seemed like they haven't been through proper checks. There were lots of errors and mistakes in the papersMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__    ReplyMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__AbsurdSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:48:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__It is absurd to suggest that things were smooth this year. Perhaps they need to talk to candidates and invigilators before issuing such ridiculous statement.Mar 16 18:48
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:50:00 GMTMar 16 18:48
schestowitz__I agree with others. The system was clearly not ready to go online. Papers were not sufficiently adapted to the new eEQE format - that is clear this year. What is disappointing is that the EPO had 1 year to sort it out. The week was far from ideal for many many candidates so it cannot be labelled as a success at all. I didn't expect the EPO to release such a false statement.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:53:00 GMTMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__I'm grateful we can do the exams online. I'm not grateful that the EPO has decided brushed aside candidates painful experience, concerns and feedback with this press release. I don't think they will take anything into account this year judging by this press release.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:53:00 GMTMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__I sat all four papers for the first time, having been unable to last year due to the late cancellation.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__I am thankful (I think- stress has been unnecessarily high) for being able to sit the exams without another year's delay.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__However, the system and adaptations were wholly unsuitable. Limiting myself to technical problems outside my control, I had four technical problems related to the software in spread over the four exams. I, along with other candidates, took the considerable time to attend the three mocks and try to digest the huge amounts of material and contradictory statements in the lead up to the exams. Thus, the technical problems I experiencedMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__cannot be considered my fault.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__My experience of, on average, one technical problem per exam is not at all unusual, based on slacking with several fellow candidates.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__This is all before one comments upon the inadequacies of the system when actually working and the dodgy adaptation of the papers.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__The self-congratulatory statement from the EPO is a final kick in the teeth and yet another example of the poor communications from the EPO throughout the set up and conducting of EQE 2021.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:55:00 GMTMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__Nobody is saying that they do not want e-EQE online. Indeed, I too didn't expect everything to go well but the start of the week really was a bad start. Papers B and C were then clearly not fit for the current e-EQE online format. I would throw in paper A into that mix too. I didn't expect any press release to happen by the EPO but to release a statement to suggests things went well does NOT reflect what actually happened during theMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__week.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:57:00 GMTMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__Because they seem to have started from the quoting that all candidates will cheat (i say this based on the tinge and content of communications and the first webinar)Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 18:06:00 GMTMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__I'm thankful that we have been told to email the exam sect, who will then forward onto the exam committee, but will anonymity be respected?Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__The last thing I want is to write something which will be used against me.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__CamSunday, 14 March 2021 at 18:34:00 GMTMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__At least set up a review. I don't believe many people in the EPO thought nothing was wrong with the new eEQE format. There were positives but there are also clearly more things that can be done to improve.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__Ned LuddSunday, 14 March 2021 at 18:39:00 GMTMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__Of course candidates are very grateful that the EQE went ahead, but "doing your best" should still guarantee a certain minimum quality. It is a professional qualification, critical for future careers.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__I am sure the D1-part 1 issues will be taken into account.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__But no-one who can state with a straight face that Wiseflow, LD Browser and Zendesk was a good solution. It was cobbled together in the last weeks (Zendesk invigilators were not allowed to speak because it would be registered as "second voice" in the room by the AI, and candidates had to check every 20 mins whether they were still logged in to Zendesk due to the automatic timeout). The info on the website was updated just days beforeMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__the exam.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__If the individual struggles of candidates are also taken into account in the marking (also "doing their best"), then it does not matter what the official press releases say. But flexibility should work both ways.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__RepliesMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__    AnonymousMonday, 15 March 2021 at 09:00:00 GMTMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__    I think its clear the committee will need to be flexible and apply much consideration this year. Whether they do this or not remains to be seen. As you've mentioned already Ned, there are far too many factors that could influence the exams this year. Further, the papers do not really seem to fit well with the current online format.Mar 16 18:49
schestowitz__    ReplyMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__S.Sunday, 14 March 2021 at 19:37:00 GMTMar 16 18:49
schestowitz__Actually, the D1-1 was "just one" and the most apparent of the drawbacks. I believe that the structure of this year's be and even more the split paper C, have been the worst issue ever. I completely failed paper C after so much studying due to lack of time, which did not allow me going properly through the documents. Further, I must admit that the online exam is extremely stressful (you feel drawbacks just around the corner) andMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__fatiguing.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__RepliesMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__    AnonymousMonday, 15 March 2021 at 08:58:00 GMTMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__    Agreed about paper C and also paper B and to a certain extent, Paper A as well.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__    For B and C, the claim formatting was so difficult to work with - it introduces errors and mistakes as the formatting was absolutely unbearable at times.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__    ReplyMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__J-DoMonday, 15 March 2021 at 09:02:00 GMTMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__My opinion - they need to scrap wiseflow system for future years. Its unworkable for these exams.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__The anonymous EQE candidate helperMonday, 15 March 2021 at 10:54:00 GMTMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__Would we have been April 1st, I would have taken EPO’s publication on the “success” of the e-EQE as a nice April’s fool joke, but this publication is adding insult to injury.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__By no ways the e-EQE in the form it was proposed this year can be a true equivalent of a paper EQE. Unless the EPO proposes a system in which offers the same possibilities as any standard text processing program, any kind of e-EQE will not be equivalent to a paper EQE.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__The decision to cancel the EQE was taken in March 20, the decision to go over to an e-EQE in July 20. This was part of the strategic orientation of the present head of the EPO. Everything has to be digitised to the maximum. An e-EQE is as such a good thing, but not the e-EQE which was offered at the beginning of March.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__Why did it take till shortly before Christmas to offer a first opportunity to the candidates to test the system? There were then two further test possibilities before the exam, the last one just a week before the actual exam. This is not acceptable.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__What did the people in charge of the e-EQE think when they sent out at the beginning of February a user’s notice of 90 pages? This should have been done in September 20 at the latest. It simply shows the amateurism of those involved. Using a text processor in which the most basic key combinations ends the candidate to lock the system or even to exclude himself is not acceptable.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__That not all possible candidates participated in the mock is not necessarily to blame them. Lots of candidates hoped to use company computers, but this was not possible as very few IT managers were prepared to give EQE candidates administrator’s rights. Some needed to get equipment like larger displays or even cameras.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__The papers used were the papers foreseen for 2020. The suggestion was made to use the 2020 papers as mocks. In view of the considerable amount of costs needed to draft a paper this was a no go. Paper C had to be split, but the split seemed quite arbitrary and not thought through.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__Normally each paper is benchmarked before it is let on the candidates. In view of turn of events, one can have strong doubts that this was done with the present e-EQE.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__Everything was rushed in the two months before the exam. And trying to sell this as a great success shows how far some people at the EPO have lost touch with reality.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__The previous comments were clear enough to show what reality was. The gap between reality and the fiction described by the EPO is awesome.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__I would add that according the EPO, the quality of the products it delivers has steadily increased since 2010. Why should it be different with the e-EQE?Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__Proof of the puddingMonday, 15 March 2021 at 11:33:00 GMTMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__For those who are seasoned observers of the EPO, it is no surprise that their management would decide to issue a self-congratulatory statement that others might find difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with their understanding of events.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__The difference on this occasion is that there are many first-hand witnesses that can testify to the fact that, all things considered, the EPO's statement is complete BS. With this in mind, it is an illuminating exercise to consider how much weight to afford to statements from the EPO in circumstances where it is much more difficult to obtain independent evidence to either prove or disprove the veracity of the EPO's reporting.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__ReplyMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__AnonymousMonday, 15 March 2021 at 13:37:00 GMTMar 16 18:50
schestowitz__It was clear that the papers were not adapted or adequately checked. There were alot of mistakes in the papers and plenty of confusing/contradictory statements across papers A, B and C. That's not usually the case at all.Mar 16 18:50
schestowitz__"Mar 16 18:50
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)Mar 16 20:34
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)Mar 16 20:52
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Mar 16 20:52
*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesMar 16 21:13
*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesMar 16 21:14
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytesMar 16 22:03
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)Mar 16 22:27
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytesMar 16 22:28
*rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesMar 16 22:29
*rianne__ has quit (*.net *.split)Mar 16 22:35
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Mar 16 23:29
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)Mar 16 23:29
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)Mar 16 23:32
*GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytesMar 16 23:36
*GNUmoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)Mar 16 23:38
*GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytesMar 16 23:41
*rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesMar 16 23:57
*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesMar 16 23:57

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.