--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/paste/paste.24600	Mon Jun 18 09:31:21 2012 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,301 @@
+2003-10-21.txt:00:56:08: <andreou> stevaras that's technically impossible, i've already told you that
+2005-05-30.txt:02:30:39: <graue> by the way, you technically have a third instruction: whitespace
+2005-06-02.txt:22:04:51: <cpressey> it's a language family, not a single language, technically, so of course it's a royal mess.
+2005-06-04.txt:16:17:25: <CXI> well, technically it counts down from 99
+2005-06-07.txt:00:44:22: <cpressey> well, text files are technically 1d, no?
+2005-06-07.txt:08:55:21: <lament> dunno what's more technically impressive, that thing or the life turing machine
+2005-06-11.txt:06:17:22: <GregorR> If you started with >++ you'd be fine, but that may make it unhappy ... it would probably be illegal HTML, technically.
+2005-07-08.txt:20:44:58: <cpressey> fungebob: the documentation ( http://catseye.webhop.net/projects/befunge93/doc/befunge93.html ) only says that playfield cells are ASCII afaict.  and ASCII is technically 7-bits, unsigned.
+2005-07-27.txt:15:21:19: <int-e> without licenses, noone has the right to use your code in any way, technically.
+2005-08-16.txt:23:01:14: <GregorR> Technically, UNdead, in that I resurrected to feast on the entrails of the living, but I'm not alive in the common sense *shrugs*
+2005-10-06.txt:04:39:57: <WildHalcyon_> its a pyramid scheme. Technically, a "legal" pyramid scheme. More to the point though, its complete bullshit
+2005-10-07.txt:21:14:58: <WildHalcyon> It thinks I pirated this copy of windows, which I technically did, but only because the CD that M$ gave me didn't work, and they refused to give me a new one. Rather than be out $300, I got this one from a friend
+2005-10-19.txt:23:57:49: <lament> technically, false says that only a-z should be valid variables
+2005-10-22.txt:03:13:35: <GregorR> (Technically you should use PONG :<hostname>, but localhost works fine)
+2005-11-25.txt:20:41:06: <calamari> wasn't technically necessary to allow multiple *'s, but it was easy so I did it
+2006-01-31.txt:03:34:38: <GregorR> Hmm, transforming this grammar, I had to use 7 LL(2)s ... now, do I continue adjusting to try to get it to LL(1), or do I say "Well, technically, it says he'll accept it in LL(2) form" and be done with it :P
+2006-02-04.txt:06:55:40: <GregorR> Technically you could do that either way, but, if you wrote the parser from scratch, it's LL :)
+2006-03-04.txt:11:42:57: <fuse> nooga: it's not technically a quine, since the output doesn't look exactly like the original program
+2006-05-25.txt:04:55:24: <GregorR> Well, the technically correct definition for 'esoteric' is similar to niche, but as applied to languages it generally means that it's designed more to determine whether strange things are possible than to be usable.  That being said, some of those strange things that have been tried end up being useful, so an esoteric language can definitely be usable.
+2006-05-26.txt:07:09:37: <Arrogant> Technically, nothing is passed in, nothing is passed out.
+2006-06-16.txt:13:50:16: <Keymaker> or technically two logs :)
+2006-07-27.txt:01:11:58: <AndrewNP> Technically it's infinite.
+2006-08-06.txt:19:21:20: <Razor-X> ihope: So is EQBF technically ``more'' quantum complete than BF?
+2006-08-14.txt:01:19:30: <Razor-X> I'm technically non-native and I did the latter.
+2006-08-14.txt:01:19:43: <RodgerTheGreat> technically?
+2006-08-16.txt:00:29:05: <CakeProphet> Not sure it was for enforced code style... since technically I could call braces-to-end-keywords a coding style using your definition  :D
+2006-08-29.txt:04:13:28: <GreyKnight> Technically it incorporates every story ever written, and many that haven't been, but obviously the author can only cover so much of the multiverse ;-)
+2006-08-30.txt:05:31:19: <Razor-X> It's funny, because x / y isn't technically part of the ABNF standard, but it's used everywhere.
+2006-09-04.txt:03:42:44: <GreyKnight> technically they're different, but the difference is only in the distance between the dots, so they're generally identical
+2006-09-26.txt:19:05:39: <pikhq> Although *technically* pure functional languages have the same thing going on. :p
+2006-10-05.txt:00:16:08: <ihope> Technically, "in a /msg" means very little :-P
+2006-10-05.txt:12:23:20: <oerjan> most likely. technically EOF does not fit in char.
+2006-10-05.txt:23:53:28: * SimonRC finds out what happens if you write sentances by committee:  "Voracious vexillologists believe that the Camelidophobic Esperanto International Association,which is obviously somewhat clever, but technically not very ethical or even subject to the Olympic games of all major holomorphic non-Euclidian institutions of value that are familiar to obsessive ZBBers and recalcitrant anthropomorphic grasshoppers, is concomitantly elucidated, although techni
+2006-10-05.txt:23:58:57: <SimonRC>           technically not zompist-approved, nor llamatically endorsed within notably ostentatious sub-committees by
+2006-10-05.txt:23:59:26: <SimonRC>           technically not zompist-approved, nor llamatically endorsed within notably ostentatious sub-committees by
+2006-10-05.txt:23:59:32: <SimonRC>           technically not zompist-approved, nor llamatically endorsed within notably ostentatious sub-committees by
+2006-10-05.txt:23:59:38: <SimonRC>           technically not zompist-approved, nor llamatically endorsed within notably ostentatious sub-committees by
+2006-10-05.txt:23:59:44: <SimonRC>           technically not zompist-approved, nor llamatically endorsed within notably ostentatious sub-committees by
+2006-10-05.txt:23:59:50: <SimonRC>           technically not zompist-approved, nor llamatically endorsed within notably ostentatious sub-committees by
+2006-10-23.txt:04:03:45: <Razor-X> Well, I just got un-busy technically yesterday.
+2006-10-23.txt:23:44:03: <oerjan> technically i think you can avoid some of the CASVS problems by just using the nominative case in most cases.
+2006-11-19.txt:22:53:36: <CakeProphet> and in my current projects I'm pretty much the most technically inclined person in the group.
+2006-11-21.txt:16:33:40: <RodgerTheGreat> although, in my timezone, it's still technically morning.
+2006-11-28.txt:01:56:37: <Razor-X> Well, it technically is not public domain.
+2006-12-02.txt:04:22:47: <Razor-X> I know in Scheme the only reason I'd use a macro was if some piece of code kept repeating itself over and over again, or I was in this sort of a position, where it's technically better Lisp-style to use a macro to generate the code instead of having a helper procedure produce a procedure that is evaluated by the outer procedure.
+2006-12-11.txt:23:19:00: <GregorR-L> Technically no :P
+2006-12-26.txt:22:53:19: <oerjan> is it even technically possible?
+2006-12-30.txt:23:39:11: <oklopol> well, technically
+2006-12-31.txt:02:02:15: <GregorR> Technically speaking, you can implement a o and on method in any class and pass that in instead of an O class *shrugs*
+2007-01-19.txt:01:11:23: <CakeProphet> it's technically a finite strip of inifitely divisble data with regular segments of "sound" and "no sound"... a binary encoding that can be divided by any ratio.
+2007-01-23.txt:03:15:49: <CakeProphet> befunge isn't technically RPN... it is stack based though.
+2007-03-10.txt:21:23:33: <oerjan> so still technically O(1).
+2007-03-28.txt:18:47:13: <lament> oerjan: the user freely and (technically) knowingly permits the malware to run.
+2007-04-10.txt:23:47:20: <oerjan> so common lisp _behaves_ as if subclasses can override, although technically they don't.
+2007-05-28.txt:06:35:20: <GregorR-L> Also, there's still no legal means to declare something as PD short of registering it as such, so most PD stuff isn't technically PD (doesn't matter since that's not really arguable in court)
+2007-06-02.txt:06:54:55: <Pikhq> So, &(void*)0; is technically invalid.
+2007-06-02.txt:06:55:16: <Pikhq> (more than technically; I think GCC would shoot me for it)
+2007-06-04.txt:20:08:58: <CakeProphet> technically, the bf array is just one giant string
+2007-06-17.txt:02:21:35: <pikhq> *Technically* yes, but it's less-defined.
+2007-06-25.txt:19:13:48: <RodgerTheGreat> if you read that ad and saved $2, they weren't technically lying
+2007-07-03.txt:00:25:26: <pikhq> GreaseMonkey: That is technically in violation of Nonlogic's policy.
+2007-07-04.txt:04:21:10: <pikhq> Although technically you could build almost all of the builtins from (lambda).
+2007-07-05.txt:00:02:41: <Sukoshi> On an old forum I used to go to, we had a joke going where returning values wasn't technically producing output.
+2007-07-10.txt:21:42:05: <oklopol> well, they are technically okay, it's just many editors and the command line environment often screw them up
+2007-07-15.txt:00:41:33: <pikhq> (PEBBLE code, BTW, is technically 100% valid Tcl code, syntactically)
+2007-07-23.txt:19:35:59: <oerjan> technically, e^(2*pi*n*i) = 1 for all integers n
+2007-07-27.txt:05:26:59: <Sukoshi> Because objects *are* technically references.
+2007-08-01.txt:00:11:58: <lament> SimonRC: technically speaking you still need to know what gules is
+2007-08-09.txt:21:40:44: <ihope> Technically meaningless, but still funny :-)
+2007-08-19.txt:21:52:01: <Gurami> and technically correct
+2007-08-26.txt:00:34:41: <oerjan> although technically it doesn't have hands
+2007-09-02.txt:23:39:54: <ihope> And yes, I technically didn't tell you about string literals :-P
+2007-09-20.txt:17:39:17: <GregorR> (Of course of course, there are technically grammars that an NPDA can parse that an LALR parser can not)
+2007-09-22.txt:02:19:15: <edwardk> though technically the haskell version lazily handles the latter pattern
+2007-10-03.txt:14:32:44: <RodgerTheGreat> that's because my scanner isn't technically large enough for my bristol board
+2007-10-23.txt:22:58:11: <ehird1> technically if you have the memory my program can support any brainfuck program up to MAX_INT characters
+2007-10-26.txt:04:52:56: <pikhq> RodgerTheGreat: Technically, *sleep* is a loss of consciousness.
+2007-10-29.txt:20:47:46: <ehird`> technically i could "optimize" , and . with a for loop
+2007-11-03.txt:17:41:19: <ehird`> technically, i still need to do the gc
+2007-11-11.txt:16:52:49: <oklopol> [[--][+]] -> [[-][]] is technically correct, but ...why the fuck does it optimize it like that?
+2007-11-13.txt:04:26:54: <pikhq> Technically, Rodger would be running a *closely related* engine. :p
+2007-11-13.txt:19:54:00: <oklokok> asm might technically mean an assembly, as in a mnemonics system... i mean a bytecode system
+2007-11-17.txt:18:44:32: <ehird`> pikhq: Yes, it's an operator technically.
+2007-11-20.txt:17:37:31: <Slereah> Well, they technically all are a subset of languages.
+2007-11-21.txt:16:27:31: <ais523> but this doesn't technically speaking restrict what I/O sequences are allowed, because it can always be stored up until input is needed
+2007-11-24.txt:19:29:24: <Figs> I mean, it's technically turing complete...
+2007-12-09.txt:19:24:23: <Slereah> But technically, it is still computation :O
+2008-01-16.txt:18:20:22: <oerjan> technically he _could_ be called Andrey
+2008-01-17.txt:03:10:33: <oklopol> technically.
+2008-01-18.txt:19:34:53: <Asztal> because although compilers would technically accept main not being a function...
+2008-01-22.txt:15:33:02: <ehird> (technically, the above is what i would respond to if it had said 'christian' or anything else, too)
+2008-01-22.txt:21:48:02: <oerjan> hm ... technically the empty program is legal but cannot be quoted...
+2008-01-23.txt:05:33:26: <RodgerTheGreat> technically speaking, there's a grain of truth to that. "MInd's Eye", or audiovisual scratchpad, depending which model of cognition you subscribe to. :)
+2008-01-23.txt:06:41:36: <adu> technically all edges are "undirected" but somehow know which one is "more positive", which mathematically implies a directed edge
+2008-01-24.txt:04:45:31: <RodgerTheGreat> I'm not technically a goon, but I've been quite tempted to buy an account
+2008-01-30.txt:22:53:36: <GregorR> Technically people have made it work with no runtime, but you lose many features.
+2008-02-03.txt:08:16:06: <adu> because everything can be though of as a query or a command anyways, and if there is no interpretation of either in the current namespace, then there would technically be an error, but if the error of not finding any current bindings was instead used as the method of binding, then the '=' operator is useless
+2008-02-04.txt:19:16:25: <ehird`> well, technically THAT doesn't but the k interp is tiny and really fast and IS used for those
+2008-02-04.txt:20:27:21: <ais523> even though technically speaking they aren't
+2008-02-04.txt:22:03:10: <ais523> technically speaking, all comments have to be replaced by a positive amount of whitespace
+2008-02-10.txt:00:37:20: <ehird`> just dejavu sans mono. it's not monospaced, technically, because of the >>> and similar
+2008-02-12.txt:22:17:26: <ehird> SimonRC: technically,
+2008-02-16.txt:21:57:37: <pikhq> You could, technically, do Malbolge with it.
+2008-02-17.txt:03:40:37: <lispy> Sgeo: which reminds me...since TC definition doesn't involves a system clock and user input.  I've sometimes wondered if there are things we could make a modern computer do that a TC technically cannot.
+2008-02-19.txt:21:16:01: <ais523> the classic a^=b^=a^=b is unfortunately not portable, and is technically undefined behaviour
+2008-02-22.txt:20:05:45: <ais523> and it isn't even an esolang, technically speaking
+2008-03-07.txt:20:09:25: <oklopol> i guess technically no, but do realize ehird recalled differently.
+2008-03-09.txt:02:51:00: <pikhq> Technically, that's address 0 in kernel mode.
+2008-03-10.txt:21:18:38: <ais523> in 2D, if you know for certain you're going non-cardinal, then technically speaking you only need to store the top and bottom
+2008-03-12.txt:21:12:28: <AnMaster> ais523_non-admin, and also technically loading the larger program will be slower
+2008-03-15.txt:19:59:52: <ehird> technically the spec allows [...] in the program just as a word
+2008-03-16.txt:22:35:19: <pikhq> (technically, those are no longer functions, but rather *relations*. . . :p)
+2008-03-31.txt:16:17:50: <ais523> which looks perfectly natural, but technically speaking .28 is the extension
+2008-04-03.txt:16:45:29: <ais523_> this is as bad as that technically-correct-SGML website that someone, I think maybe pikhq, linked to a while ago
+2008-04-04.txt:14:05:55: <ais523> but the result is the POSIX equivalent of a DS9K; yes, technically it complies with the spec, but nobody else does things like that
+2008-04-04.txt:21:29:46: <SimonRC> vixey: dragon-shaped, but technically not dragons
+2008-04-09.txt:16:15:48: <oklopol> and you technically can't, if lisp is defined to fail in some cases
+2008-04-14.txt:11:04:33: <oklopol> i guess it's not technically a quine, because that's not printed to stdout
+2008-04-16.txt:17:04:24: <AnMaster> anyway befunge technically got no syntax errors either, it is perfectly valid to use an non-implemented instruction to reflect
+2008-04-23.txt:18:45:57: <ehird> ais523: however, technically you don't violate the github tos
+2008-04-23.txt:18:47:39: <ais523> ehird: oh, I forgot that you didn't need a TLD for email, technically speaking
+2008-05-01.txt:22:24:36: <ais523> AnMaster: technically speaking Windows is POSIX too, at least when they tested it they got a 'did not definitively fail' answer
+2008-05-06.txt:22:09:31: <ehird> ais523: technically
+2008-05-07.txt:20:42:54: <ehird> technically it'll work
+2008-05-08.txt:22:19:10: <ehird> technically, if you give the definition of replace I stated,
+2008-05-15.txt:00:20:33: <oerjan> wikipedia tells me that technically coffee beans are not beans either
+2008-05-15.txt:22:19:35: <ehird> Technically I have given up on very few projects. But some of them have been at low priority for years.
+2008-05-19.txt:05:09:56: <Slereah_> There's three suits, technically
+2008-05-26.txt:03:12:27: <oklopol> (well technically it does, but not important here)
+2008-05-27.txt:21:18:46: <oklopol> (well technically i did by saying that out loud)
+2008-05-28.txt:23:30:35: <ehird> technically that's against freenode rules
+2008-05-30.txt:21:19:35: <Slereah_> Well, so's a Turing machine, technically.
+2008-05-30.txt:21:23:13: <Slereah_> But I suppose that, technically, there's a twin of the 2,3 machine, with directions reversed, such that right-cut would still be TC.
+2008-06-01.txt:14:39:51: <ais523> and technically speaking there's no reason why you couldn't implement curses in Brainfuck, except that that would be insane
+2008-06-01.txt:19:23:20: <Slereah> Well, technically, I could just do a replace = by the combinator
+2008-06-05.txt:01:02:49: <Slereah> Technically, I think that most of the time, there will only be one argument for it to be valid.
+2008-06-06.txt:20:42:41: <oklopol> (got it, i guess i was technically wrong)
+2008-06-07.txt:18:23:21: <AnMaster> well it could technically register it
+2008-06-07.txt:18:23:32: <tusho> AnMaster: Well, technically it could. But what would it do with it?
+2008-06-08.txt:15:26:23: <Slereah> Well, it's technically copyrighted.
+2008-06-10.txt:18:31:41: <Slereah7> Plus, technically, it's the same rigid formalism
+2008-06-17.txt:21:57:41: <oklopol> well, don't forget Rule on Page, technically i still have the lead with less than 70 points.
+2008-06-18.txt:02:20:27: <oklofok> but as i'm in a band (well technically two), i need to drink occasionally
+2008-06-19.txt:23:54:02: <AnMaster> technically
+2008-06-19.txt:23:54:12: <ais523> well, C-INTERCAL can run on other compilers, technically
+2008-06-27.txt:18:32:10: <tusho> technically that has extra whitespace
+2008-06-28.txt:01:00:54: <Slereah_> Technically, using Planck units to define units of space time, the entire universe is way under 10^150 units of spacetime
+2008-06-28.txt:06:03:03: <psygnisfive> also, it is technically illegal in the US, yes.
+2008-06-28.txt:07:58:09: <psygnisfive> which means that technically its not a quine
+2008-06-28.txt:08:01:27: <psygnisfive> which i guess is technically what the source is
+2008-07-02.txt:19:45:29: <tusho> GregorR: Technically I stole it from Ruby, which does it _unambigiously_
+2008-07-03.txt:17:41:35: <AnMaster> ais523, well it can technically
+2008-07-07.txt:20:32:41: <ais523> well, technically speaking there are no limitations on fingerprint names
+2008-07-13.txt:21:14:47: <tusho> technically it's right.
+2008-07-21.txt:03:31:51: <Slereah__> I mean, technically
+2008-07-23.txt:17:56:50: <MikeRiley> technically no, other than it says the 0k will not execute the next instruction
+2008-07-24.txt:19:13:21: <AnMaster> technically STDIO is system interaction... ;P
+2008-07-25.txt:16:12:29: <MikeRiley> technically,,,since the spec says like c fgets, and fgets keeps the line endings....
+2008-07-27.txt:16:57:15: <MikeRiley> technically,,,even FNGR could be made to work using this scheme....but will stick with the new FING for doing this kind of thing...
+2008-07-27.txt:21:52:05: <tusho> well, technically it doesn't
+2008-08-02.txt:22:37:11: <oerjan> i'm technically subscribed, but only the backup lists are set to deliver
+2008-08-06.txt:20:17:48: <tusho> mplayer on windows, while technically possible, is a bit pointless
+2008-08-06.txt:22:26:28: <tusho> technically powered by mediawiki but that's irrelevant
+2008-08-07.txt:15:14:48: <tusho> and well technically you could do just about anything
+2008-08-08.txt:13:42:03: <tusho> oklopol: technically its purpose is to change the topic
+2008-08-08.txt:21:00:01: <tusho> technically it isn't a lie
+2008-08-08.txt:22:45:57: <ais523> and yes, should go in >, technically speaking there's no need to bother about <
+2008-08-10.txt:12:26:23: <tusho> technically they're not valid URIs
+2008-08-11.txt:12:09:19: <AnMaster> technically
+2008-08-11.txt:12:10:52: <AnMaster> because technically, all it is is a number
+2008-08-11.txt:12:29:04: <tusho> technically it's not
+2008-08-14.txt:19:33:21: <AnMaster> should technically be possible
+2008-08-17.txt:19:22:38: <AnMaster> I guess "no read" technically too, but I can't see the use of that
+2008-08-22.txt:15:50:06: <Slereah_> Well, technically
+2008-08-24.txt:19:49:00: <MikeRiley> i am a bit confused why mycology has a test to see if SCKE is included in SOCK,,,since technically it should not be....
+2008-08-31.txt:00:12:05: <tusho> Additionally: clicking an ad by mistake is technically click fraud
+2008-09-16.txt:17:35:46: <ais523> but it's technically speaking usable for programming, if you're very patient
+2008-09-16.txt:19:53:57: <AnMaster> technically impossible
+2008-09-21.txt:22:45:58: <oerjan> technically, yes
+2008-09-26.txt:20:46:43: <Slereah> I think that two elisioned sesses are combined in one, technically
+2008-09-27.txt:10:25:58: <Keymaker> but i don't know what the memory is, technically. new values go to end and also when loop begins it takes value from end, but values are removed beginning from left/start
+2008-09-27.txt:14:58:19: <oerjan> technically i think i'd've wanted `(',f ',cc) or a direct application
+2008-10-01.txt:14:33:09: <tusho> Is technically illegal.
+2008-10-01.txt:21:49:30: <oerjan> ais523_: the elder god things are not technically part of it.  but don't let that reassure you.
+2008-10-01.txt:23:03:09: <ais523_> AnMaster: technically it's a nomic but its rules rarely change, the nomicness is only used to improve them from time to time
+2008-10-01.txt:23:17:54: <ais523_> that's technically gramatically correct
+2008-10-03.txt:20:48:51: <oerjan> CO2Games: yeah then you need a tape device, a RAM is not technically enough since the pointer sizes would be bounded too
+2008-10-07.txt:17:01:57: <oklocod> oerjan: sat is just 3-sat with larger clauses right? then it's technically not the same, because the gate thing has nested operations and suchamathings.
+2008-10-08.txt:17:49:01: <oklocod> there should never be a command that makes technically existing, but practically nonexistant, functionality easier :P
+2008-10-08.txt:17:49:30: <oerjan> oklocod: this is not that kind.  this is technically non-existing, so that's fine
+2008-10-08.txt:17:49:54: <oklocod> oerjan: well it's technically existing if you have some other representation of a string on the stack
+2008-10-10.txt:22:57:51: <ehird> although technically you can do classes
+2008-10-10.txt:23:21:21: <ehird> I own the server (a VPS technically), ais523 is sudoer.
+2008-10-13.txt:11:54:36: <oklopol> thank you, although that was so obvious i should technically kill everyone of you
+2008-10-16.txt:21:11:58: <fizzie> Another style thing: in the "ATHR vs. REFC" the wording, while technically speaking correct, maybe a bit needlessly complicated. The REFC reference numbers don't really matter, so it probably doesn't matter if they're given out first-come-first-served or something stranger, you could just say they're global and need to work without explicit synchronization of requests.
+2008-10-17.txt:21:45:01: <fizzie> Some three of the ten "newer nodes" in the CIS cluster only have two of the four cores in use, so I guess there would technically speaking be some room there too.
+2008-10-20.txt:22:18:26: <psygnisfive> technically i put it on your stem
+2008-10-22.txt:18:17:15: <oklopol> optbot is a baby, technically, as are most bots
+2008-10-24.txt:14:02:32: <ais523> AnMaster: that's interesting... I'd argue that doing something that's both utterly unexpected and technically correct is correct behaviour for an ESO pastebin
+2008-10-24.txt:14:56:58: <ehird> well, technically you could enter a program that prints inputs
+2008-10-27.txt:01:40:21: <psygnisfive> but brain != mind. atleast not technically
+2008-11-11.txt:17:44:36: <GregorR> That way they wouldn't be links (technically)!
+2008-11-12.txt:17:38:23: <oklopol> but i am technically running, i can show you a vid once i master this.
+2008-11-13.txt:14:24:38: <ehird_> Also, technically messing up KDE was my fault, but i'm blaming it on KDE.
+2008-11-14.txt:12:27:27: <oklopol> technically i was just "jumping around" before.
+2008-11-14.txt:14:54:56: <oklopol> yeah he says "the reader will find this confusing", but that's bullcrap, i'm not talking about "finnish that sounds pretty", i'm just telling you i'm technically right.
+2008-11-15.txt:21:34:15: <Slereah_> Also in the logs, technically
+2008-11-21.txt:14:19:17: <Slereah_> It can be O anything, technically.
+2008-11-27.txt:20:24:12: * oklopol is technically a bastard!
+2008-11-27.txt:20:28:32: <AnMaster> technically we all got exactly one asshole too :P
+2008-11-28.txt:09:19:44: <Slereah_> Technically, I should need it only for one application.
+2008-11-29.txt:13:58:14: <Slereah_> Well, technically, it does.
+2008-11-29.txt:19:07:19: <jayCampbell> wasn't that technically a ranged attack?
+2008-12-04.txt:21:40:59: <ehird> Although technically I do not have to track them, I feel like I should.
+2008-12-05.txt:21:58:07: <ais523> technically speaking?
+2008-12-10.txt:15:05:49: <zuff> oklopol: because it technically is
+2008-12-16.txt:18:47:26: <zuff> Technically ais523 is a separate person because he's a wikipedia admin and they get death threats and stuff.
+2008-12-16.txt:22:12:25: <zuff> also, it's technically down.
+2008-12-23.txt:23:12:49: <psygnisfive> which is i suppose technically possible
+2008-12-24.txt:14:05:05: <oerjan> technically even here it doesn't start until 5 o'clock iirc
+2008-12-25.txt:14:38:01: <AnMaster> ais523|direct, technically it could work at any point during the year
+2008-12-30.txt:04:29:25: <Sgeo> Technically, in AW, not an arbitrary number, due to space limitations, but let's ignore that
+2008-12-30.txt:04:29:48: <Sgeo> identical objects can technically be distinguished, if the viewer can't see some of them
+2009-01-02.txt:19:23:31: <CakeProphet> though technically I'm familiar with C... but I never use it unless someone needs me to.
+2009-01-04.txt:16:07:00: <ais523> if a point is so far away it's moving away faster than the speed of light, it's technically outside the universe
+2009-01-04.txt:16:08:20: <ais523> Slereah: well, technically, but everything else expands at the same rate too, so it gets smaller compared to all the objects inside it
+2009-01-04.txt:16:12:01: <oklopol> Slereah: well technically not, say the universe consisted of cells of some size that was constantly getting bigger
+2009-01-04.txt:16:12:21: <ais523> ehird: as for Drizzle, they're taking out all the features that you don't technically have to use in a MySQL database AFAICT
+2009-01-09.txt:19:03:01: <Hiato> Hrmm... ok, so fundamentally, technically, it's not cool. Deewiant, do you use it? PS: it does have a much catchier description: a lightweight  and flexible Linux® distribution that tries to Keep It Simple.
+2009-01-14.txt:19:57:32: <ais523> which in Perl, is technically compile-time
+2009-01-15.txt:19:56:53: <ehird> ok, technically we have purl.org
+2009-01-18.txt:16:52:01: <ais523> returning a struct is technically speaking only returning one value
+2009-01-18.txt:17:41:16: <ais523> despite it being technically illegal
+2009-01-18.txt:17:47:43: <AnMaster> I just had a crazy idea for how to implement an AI that would actually work, it is technically unfeasible though
+2009-01-18.txt:17:49:18: <AnMaster> ais523, I said "technically unfeasible"
+2009-01-18.txt:17:49:53: <AnMaster> ais523, indeed. I said "technically unfeasible" and "given enough time"
+2009-01-21.txt:20:02:57: <oerjan> i mean _technically_ one of them is official, but no one has ever managed to call that rule without using an AI
+2009-01-21.txt:21:21:00: <ais523> no, WP:BEANS technically says "Don't tell people not to do something, because they'll be certain to try"
+2009-01-21.txt:22:26:21: <oerjan> i supposed technically someone _could_ have mirrored it
+2009-01-26.txt:20:43:53: <oklopol> i'm pretty sure "before wp was what it is now" meant wikipedia didn't exist, with the additional "don't make smart-ass comments about it somehow technically existing in some form"
+2009-01-27.txt:00:05:30: <ehird> it isn't technically a program as much as a program fragment I cooked up when thinking about concatenative langs for a game engine scripting language
+2009-01-31.txt:18:07:05: <oklopol> of course, it seems i technically haven't implemented it anymore, because it doesn't work.
+2009-02-01.txt:17:31:49: <oklopol> technically yes.
+2009-02-04.txt:17:37:46: <ehird> what's needed is inline asm in haskell. then, technically, it'd be 100% haskell ;-D
+2009-02-04.txt:18:36:43: <ehird> ^ despite being technically forbidden, this is the closest type I can get the FFI to output, and gcc accepts it...
+2009-02-04.txt:19:02:42: <ehird> technically, I should be doing `hs_add_root(__stginit_Export);` after the hs_init, where __stginit_Export is defined...somewhere, but what the heck
+2009-02-05.txt:19:09:07: <ais523> impomatic: technically speaking, it isn't functional, but all writing in it seems to be functional in practice
+2009-02-05.txt:19:09:52: <impomatic> So technically speaking, would I need to ad much to make it functional?
+2009-02-05.txt:21:05:13: <ais523> technically speaking, strings in a #include can be parsed however the compiler wants
+2009-02-05.txt:21:05:39: <ais523> they don't even technically have to refer to filenames, although every compiler I've met does that
+2009-02-08.txt:14:57:52: <ais523> ehird: you are aware that "wat" is technically speaking a spelling error?
+2009-02-11.txt:17:20:46: <ais523> well, technically prolog is a lisp derivative
+2009-02-11.txt:21:46:35: <ehirddit> All my settings and files are technically gone, but I'll fish out what I need from /Previous Systems/.
+2009-02-13.txt:08:30:13: <oklofok> i mean, i am technically cs people, but i should probably be math people
+2009-02-14.txt:16:09:08: <ehird> technically, it shouldn't have persisted past the upgrade anyway
+2009-02-14.txt:16:50:35: <ehird> (technically, the logs are on bespin.org; tunes.org just happens to be hosted on bespin
+2009-02-14.txt:16:54:19: <ais523> that isn't even an esolang, technically speaking
+2009-02-15.txt:09:20:09: <oerjan> also, that's technically correct only if you count duplicates, in which case it still isn't, should be 2*len(nick)+1
+2009-02-18.txt:17:32:30: <ehird> well, technically it stores an integer pointer too.
+2009-02-22.txt:22:19:04: <oerjan> ais523: "i call myself", technically
+2009-02-24.txt:21:59:57: <oerjan> well i guess technically the Tuesday has the same problem
+2009-02-26.txt:00:03:02: <AnMaster> oklopol, talking about Mac OS 6-9 (and probably older ones, but never used them. and yes it is technically System 6, System 7, Mac OS 8, Mac OS 9...)
+2009-02-28.txt:20:14:05: <ais523> ehird: I think technically speaking you aren't allowed to do that in C
+2009-02-28.txt:23:42:28: <ehird> oerjan: technically, a.s. != autism
+2009-03-01.txt:17:02:19: <oklopol> that was interesting, technically, yes, but i mean something that's interesting to play
+2009-03-02.txt:14:43:52: <ehird> i think it might be technically correc
+2009-03-03.txt:18:32:24: <FireFly> But it looks about as good, technically wise
+2009-03-03.txt:22:05:32: <AnMaster> ehird, I don't have the C89 spec. I know it breaks C99 technically
+2009-03-05.txt:18:02:41: <ais523> is that, technically speaking, a stack overflow?
+2009-03-05.txt:18:16:24: <AnMaster> technically current erlang versions can run out of atoms. But the limit is a few millions iirc, and someone said it will most likely go away in the next major release
+2009-03-07.txt:22:13:51: <ehird> bsmntbombdood: technically, 20kb would be enough.
+2009-03-08.txt:16:35:57: <AnMaster> ais523, it technically does. That is the effect.
+2009-03-08.txt:20:10:20: <ehird> technically
+2009-03-08.txt:22:44:45: <ehird> Horrible, evil Scheme code that is technically R5RS compliant.
+2009-03-10.txt:15:58:33: <ehird> (isn't it technically troff that does that?)
+2009-03-11.txt:23:55:07: <oerjan> mapM_, technically
+2009-03-13.txt:19:07:41: <ais523> and nearly all are abandonware, technically that's illegal but nobody but me seems to care
+2009-03-13.txt:23:04:32: <mad> I think it's specific to snes technically but in general it refers to effects where you alter registers between lines
+2009-03-16.txt:23:37:46: <psygnisfive> technically
+2009-03-17.txt:19:19:39: <fizzie> Also in practice, many A/D converters are technically speaking 1-bit, it's just that they have a high enough frequency. And then some stuff to get multi-bit values.
+2009-03-18.txt:00:35:20: <oerjan> or wait, that "new" is not technically part of the rules
+2009-03-18.txt:14:56:28: <fizzie> Well, I mean, technically speaking I guess I should be learning it. There is an obligatory Swedish exam part of our study curriculum (it's in the law, even), and I thought I'd get it done easier by doing it in course form.
+2009-03-20.txt:00:22:24: <oklofok> although i guess that's technically not a good opposite for fun
+2009-03-22.txt:17:52:33: <ais523> TAEB takes a lot longer than 1 second to start up, and is technically a script I suppose
+2009-03-22.txt:21:05:21: <Slereah_> Technically, the answer should be R
+2009-03-23.txt:17:56:32: <AnMaster> I think they are technically incompatible though
+2009-03-23.txt:22:12:13: <AnMaster> ehird, yes technically
+2009-03-24.txt:19:10:54: <AnMaster> ais523_, I see. So it is technically even simpler to parse?
+2009-03-24.txt:19:56:52: <ehird> ais523_: Yes, you're lucky because you have technically competent friends.
+2009-03-24.txt:20:05:49: <ehird> Come on, you can't seriously believe people are that technically competent.
+2009-03-26.txt:16:32:29: <ais523> ehird: I thought abandonware was a term for things that were technically illegal, but that nobody cared enough to sue about
+2009-03-27.txt:23:41:01: <AnMaster> also I know technically how you do it, I can manage short and not to steep hills fine. and I know how you put your foots. never let the tips drift apart too much for example.
+2009-03-29.txt:23:26:16: <oerjan> well technically the car parts would probably fall off because the view out is so lousy you cannot avoid bumping into things
+2009-03-30.txt:23:25:16: <fizzie> But I have even more -doc packages: autobook (well, technically that's not -doc), autoconf-doc, automake1.9-doc, gcc-4.1-doc, gcc-4.3-doc, gcc-doc-base, gdb-doc, ocaml-doc.
+2009-04-01.txt:22:47:23: <ais523> my C-INTERCAL is technically a fork, but because the original had been discontinued for years it became the de-facto official version
+2009-04-01.txt:23:11:55: <ais523> technically speaking, I'm an engineer
+2009-04-02.txt:16:48:11: <ehird> yes, it's technically correct
+2009-04-02.txt:16:48:38: <ehird> llback, and much more. We also pride ourselves in having technically competent support staff based in our UK offices.
+2009-04-02.txt:16:51:58: <Slereah> Well, technically, it's correct
+2009-04-03.txt:21:45:43: <ehird> Pac-Man technically has no ending—as long as the player keeps at least one life, they should be able to continue playing indefinitely. However, because of a bug in the routine that draws the fruit, the right side of the 256th level becomes a garbled mess of text and symbols, rendering the level impossible to pass by legitimate means. Normally, no more than seven fruits are displayed at any one time, but when the internal level counter (stored in a sing
+[too many lines; stopping]