well, a little down time isn't that bad. Good that the fire was put out. Keep up the good work!

wow... that could have been bad... how many backups of the archives are there?

Several. And at different physical locations, in fireproof safes.

And in case they all fail, google.com caches most of the web, and certainly has ticalc.org cached.

Google does not cache ZIP files.

which would be... bad.

300+ days of uptime? So I guess you aren't counting the complete shut-down of the file archives? If you ask me, your site has been down for weeks. Please keep up all the good work to get the archives running again.

I'm sure he's talking about uptime of the server, as reported by the uptime command:

electrum@gcs:~$ uptime
13:52:00 up 81 days, 21:55, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

2:17pm up 64 days, 13:42, 2 users, load average: 0.32, 0.28, 0.26

Sorry, I was in no means trying to brag about uptimes, as obviously 81 days is pitiful. I just pasted the output of uptime from a random box to demonstrate what Magnus was talking about.

oh oops. Sorry

Please, oh please do not start an uptime-output thread...

I don't even know how to check! :-} (embarrassed smile)

I dunno about my actualt *server*, but my computer has been on for almost a month. God bless Windows XP. It hardly ever crashes.

"Therefor" is spelled with an e on the end you know. Anyway, it's nice to see the site back up.

Come on people, everyone makes typos!

I mak typeos to and noone cares tht muuch.

Then there's always this:

H3y! Sam3anq switchqd th3 k3ys an my k3ybaerd!

d0 u talk l1k3 a 31337 4ax0r t00?

I t9lk l1k3 9n 31337 h9xx0r t00. (but I do it slightly different)

d00d! |20xx0|2! J00 |<n0vv vv|-|0z j00|2 c|4c|c|y?

=

dood! roxxor! joo know whoz joor daddy?

shut up SHUT UP *S H U T U P* !!!!
AAAAAAAAARGH ! I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF THINKING !

hmmm...
sorry kinda got dragged away :-/

What about using spell-check?

I use Notepad (for windows 3.1/95/98/2000/ME/xp) to create and edit all of my HTML/Javascript/Perl (though I can't use PERL)/C/Java/TI-82 Assembly ect. and it doesn't have a spell check.

As is apparent when you write something like "ect." instead of "etc."

"Therefor" instead of "therefore" is not a typo (probably). It is a misspelling. Usually, people don't not type a silent 'e' because their finger slipped, rather because they didn't know a word was spelled with a silent 'e.'

Aj vud lajk if Ingliš vos fonetik lengviđ, lajk sam adr Juropijan lengviđis. Of kors, dis vil bi slajtli strenđ for netiv Inglišmen, bat d speling problm vil disapir. Lrning Ingliš speling wil rikvajr onli uan jr, instid siks jrs lajk nau.
Es en edišnl posibiliti, dis rifom in Ingliš vil mejk it izier to lrn, bikoz Ingliš pritends to bi globl lengviđ. Vid fonetik rifom, ju vil bi ejbl to rajt sam nejms vič ju ken not korektli rajt in karnt Ingliš, lajk Ivan, vič iz ordinri red lajk Ajvn.
Anfortuntntly, der a sam semisaunds vič rikvajr sam dišnl kerktrs, bat also sam vords vid difrnt rajting, bat sejm riding.

I agree! Let's fix English's screwed-up spelling problems!

But maybe in a different format than that...? The special accented characters might cause problems for some people.

The problem runs more deeply than that. If we were to adapt to a pure phonetic spelling, some confusion would be caused. Homophones would become homographs. Sometimes context could help you figure it out, but in short, simple phrases, saying "raise a building" and "raze a building," with phonetic spelling, could cause some problems, as well as "reckless/wreckless driving." Although we wouldn't have any problem with the annoying "its/it's" confusion that I see so often on the internet, too much would be changed. "natural" and "nature" would begin with very different characters (through the above system, "nej" and "na" respectively), and the etymological similarity would be lost. Also, pluralizing would be made more complicated. "Cats" and "dogs" end with the same letter right now, but they would end with "s" and "z" respectively, same with possessive nouns, which would have to become "Mat's" and "Ted'z." We'd have to make a totally new set of rules based on what sound ended the word. Also, you'd lose the flair that the English language has in borrowing from other tongues. "Randejvu" and "dejnuman" don't have the same verve and "rendezvous" and "denouement" do. So much of what makes this language so great is what would be lost in a uniform spelling.
<stupid>Besides, if we spelled words the way they sounded, "cat" would actually be spelled "meow."</stupid>

I have to admit, most of the ideas I've said in here come from intrepid linguist Richard Lederer, but this was all from memory, my own words, because I agree with what he's said.