What was there to "get" in the movies. I mean, I came out of the cinema feeling I'd understood all but why some niggly little person did something small somewhere, usual thing. I didn't understand what there was that other people were claiming to not understand. Having said that I felt the films were as deep as a puddle on a dry day.
First film was good, the other two I didn't see the point in at all.
Ah, amazing what you miss when you're not actively looking. I will consider this in future...
well, not for phones, I tend to trade those in - come to think of it I should have assumed that shops would just take then back even as not part of a trade in for recycling...
Well, interestingly at the roadside I often see glass and cans, but never paper. Paper recycling facilities I only ever see at household waste disposal places, major facilities... textiles are a bit more common.
Newspapers are picked up off the kerb outside the house though, you put them in a carrier bag. I do wonder about that though... do they recycle that carrier bag? As with cans and glass too in my area, you put them in a supplied (reusably sensibly) green box outside the house, they sort it when they come around.
Hmm, I was aware of being able to trade in phones. And now you mention it they do indeed have boxes at branches of shops I have now seen them. I had no idea about charity shops though, nor about Tesco.
So, the facilities are there, other than finding out some someone helpfully informing me such as yourself, where would the average person go to find out this info? I suppose asking in phone shops... do we have any general info about how to recycle stuff? In tesco frequently though and have never seen anything about them taking phones... does this apply to other batteries, btw? Which 90% of people just dump in bins.
and as I recall Acorn won that case. Didn't they first buy the opposite adversing space and disagree with it and get sued by Apple? Maybe this is a case of chinese whispers though.
I do wonder that with batteries in the UK. THey always say on them to recycle them in the facilities provided. I always think "what facilities?". Things are improving, we now have roadside pickups for cans, glass, paper, textiles. Not plasic for some reason, though other areas do. Still no batteries though...
About the size of the US and area codes... true, though clearly it doesn't have to be billed like that. In the UK, smaller clearly but the same point applies just less so, area codes are just that, area codes, mobiles are all non-regionalised numbers though, and the same works in reverse, any landline number is local to a mobile. Just depends on how the system is implemented.
Hardly any consumers take up the options. Small businesses on the other hand frequently do, forwarding office numbers to mobiles out of work hours, works a treat.
Though the difference between different versions of HTML doesn't require billions of dollars in infrastructure investments like CDMA/GSM would. Clearly then it's easier for the loser to adapt, for there to be many more examples of competition and similar issues that allow the free market to adapt quicker.
as I recall they fairly heavily aerata the river thames in London (using the aptly names Thames Bubbler). Aerating a medium sized river can't be much different from doing a lake, surely?
Yes, I know it works, thank you. I'm merely making the point that it's fair to assume a www./. appears to have a www more to confuse people less than because they want to. Embarassingly I am now incorrect in saying the profiles do not work off www.... they certainly didn't for a while.
Of course it happens! It's assumed a site has www, if someone said mail.yahoo.com I'd assume no www, but if someone said yahoo.com I'd naturally assume a www, I often say something like "yahoo.com" to people knowing full well they'll add the www for me. Extending that one would naturally assume that if someone says "slashdot.org" they are just being lazy and really mean www.slashdot.org
I frequently naturally visited www.slashdot.org originally. Clearly I know the www isn't necessary, that doesn't mean it doesn't come naturally though. Seriously, why is slashdot not a www site? I can only imagine it's some childish stance against putting www to confuse stupid people (this I have known and consider a far worse crime than thinking www is the only way websites are), what you end up with is an ugly url.
Ok, so I didn't look that hard, partly on the grounds that I like firebird anyway, and the difficulty of downloading it on a 100meg connection was about equiv to looking harder for the option:P
*humbled by less lazy people*
Actually the most disappointing thing I found (at least with our mac setup - which shows how little disappointing it was really) was that IE was on the thingy bar thing by default, and Safari wasn't, shame, I hope that's not true of normal installs.
You amuse me. All the comment appears to have meant is "you don't like it, fine, but I do, so I don't really care".
Really, I don't care either which is the top CPU, I run a 1.4 Athlon at home and have no real feeling that I need to upgrade... so why should a G5 owner really worry if it's a little slower than some other CPUs?
I agree about using OSX in comparison to XP, but seriously Linux really has made huge advances. GNOME and KDE are both nicer to use than XP (I've tested this on completely computer illiterate computer users) and now installations work fine too. Ok, lack of driver support holds it back in places, lack of GUI consistency (too many legacy based apps) but 1997... no.
OS X is cleaner and more polished than either though, and runs beautifully on a G5. And to think I've only been using it 3 days... maybe I'll start to find it a pain soon, but not yet (although I couldn't see any support for tabs in safari so had to install firebird, so there was ONE minor issue).
It's funny, I've just spent 3 days playing with the new G5s at uni (not used a mac for years until now), and already I now head straight for those, or the mandrake boxes and avoid the windows ones totally. XP looks drab, clunky and poorly finished in comparison to either OS X or GNOME nowadays.
Pretty much, and most of the sites that don't work in moz don't do so because of poor site design, rather than lacking features (quite the opposite in fact). A site I recently visited didn't work... spent a few mins with the code and realised their javascript was just wrong, sent them the correction, hopefully it'll work in moz soon.
Slashdot Mirror
What was there to "get" in the movies. I mean, I came out of the cinema feeling I'd understood all but why some niggly little person did something small somewhere, usual thing. I didn't understand what there was that other people were claiming to not understand. Having said that I felt the films were as deep as a puddle on a dry day.
First film was good, the other two I didn't see the point in at all.
But unfortunately I couldn't afford a starter-motor, so I have to crank it myself.
Yes indeed, and why stop at a cocoanut? Now they could take a watermelon with them!
You're listings to the adverts that paid for it though.
Or you're happier at the dentist, because you're listing to the music that THEY're paying for, you pay the dentist, everyone happy.
Is the Russian army not larger?
Of course, but then there's no verification for the client that you are who you say you are.
Ah, amazing what you miss when you're not actively looking. I will consider this in future...
well, not for phones, I tend to trade those in - come to think of it I should have assumed that shops would just take then back even as not part of a trade in for recycling...
Well, interestingly at the roadside I often see glass and cans, but never paper. Paper recycling facilities I only ever see at household waste disposal places, major facilities... textiles are a bit more common.
Newspapers are picked up off the kerb outside the house though, you put them in a carrier bag. I do wonder about that though... do they recycle that carrier bag? As with cans and glass too in my area, you put them in a supplied (reusably sensibly) green box outside the house, they sort it when they come around.
Hmm, I was aware of being able to trade in phones. And now you mention it they do indeed have boxes at branches of shops I have now seen them. I had no idea about charity shops though, nor about Tesco.
So, the facilities are there, other than finding out some someone helpfully informing me such as yourself, where would the average person go to find out this info? I suppose asking in phone shops... do we have any general info about how to recycle stuff? In tesco frequently though and have never seen anything about them taking phones... does this apply to other batteries, btw? Which 90% of people just dump in bins.
and as I recall Acorn won that case. Didn't they first buy the opposite adversing space and disagree with it and get sued by Apple? Maybe this is a case of chinese whispers though.
I do wonder that with batteries in the UK. THey always say on them to recycle them in the facilities provided. I always think "what facilities?". Things are improving, we now have roadside pickups for cans, glass, paper, textiles. Not plasic for some reason, though other areas do. Still no batteries though...
Ah, quite possible, not something I put any thought to, I was just extending what little knowledge I do have on the subject I'm afraid.
About the size of the US and area codes... true, though clearly it doesn't have to be billed like that. In the UK, smaller clearly but the same point applies just less so, area codes are just that, area codes, mobiles are all non-regionalised numbers though, and the same works in reverse, any landline number is local to a mobile. Just depends on how the system is implemented.
Hardly any consumers take up the options. Small businesses on the other hand frequently do, forwarding office numbers to mobiles out of work hours, works a treat.
Though the difference between different versions of HTML doesn't require billions of dollars in infrastructure investments like CDMA/GSM would. Clearly then it's easier for the loser to adapt, for there to be many more examples of competition and similar issues that allow the free market to adapt quicker.
as I recall they fairly heavily aerata the river thames in London (using the aptly names Thames Bubbler). Aerating a medium sized river can't be much different from doing a lake, surely?
Yes, I know it works, thank you. I'm merely making the point that it's fair to assume a www. /. appears to have a www more to confuse people less than because they want to. Embarassingly I am now incorrect in saying the profiles do not work off www.... they certainly didn't for a while.
Of course it happens! It's assumed a site has www, if someone said mail.yahoo.com I'd assume no www, but if someone said yahoo.com I'd naturally assume a www, I often say something like "yahoo.com" to people knowing full well they'll add the www for me. Extending that one would naturally assume that if someone says "slashdot.org" they are just being lazy and really mean www.slashdot.org
I frequently naturally visited www.slashdot.org originally. Clearly I know the www isn't necessary, that doesn't mean it doesn't come naturally though. Seriously, why is slashdot not a www site? I can only imagine it's some childish stance against putting www to confuse stupid people (this I have known and consider a far worse crime than thinking www is the only way websites are), what you end up with is an ugly url.
Was sure I replied to this before...
anyway, didn't mean you amused, I agree with you as you can tell. Was the post I replied to that was amusing.
Still, if it makes you feel better you are highly amusing.
Ok, so I didn't look that hard, partly on the grounds that I like firebird anyway, and the difficulty of downloading it on a 100meg connection was about equiv to looking harder for the option :P
*humbled by less lazy people*
Actually the most disappointing thing I found (at least with our mac setup - which shows how little disappointing it was really) was that IE was on the thingy bar thing by default, and Safari wasn't, shame, I hope that's not true of normal installs.
Ok, I shall have to refer you to the other reply to my message, which contains the correct answer.
Thank you for your time.
You amuse me. All the comment appears to have meant is "you don't like it, fine, but I do, so I don't really care".
Really, I don't care either which is the top CPU, I run a 1.4 Athlon at home and have no real feeling that I need to upgrade... so why should a G5 owner really worry if it's a little slower than some other CPUs?
I agree about using OSX in comparison to XP, but seriously Linux really has made huge advances. GNOME and KDE are both nicer to use than XP (I've tested this on completely computer illiterate computer users) and now installations work fine too. Ok, lack of driver support holds it back in places, lack of GUI consistency (too many legacy based apps) but 1997... no.
OS X is cleaner and more polished than either though, and runs beautifully on a G5. And to think I've only been using it 3 days... maybe I'll start to find it a pain soon, but not yet (although I couldn't see any support for tabs in safari so had to install firebird, so there was ONE minor issue).
It's funny, I've just spent 3 days playing with the new G5s at uni (not used a mac for years until now), and already I now head straight for those, or the mandrake boxes and avoid the windows ones totally. XP looks drab, clunky and poorly finished in comparison to either OS X or GNOME nowadays.
Pretty much, and most of the sites that don't work in moz don't do so because of poor site design, rather than lacking features (quite the opposite in fact). A site I recently visited didn't work... spent a few mins with the code and realised their javascript was just wrong, sent them the correction, hopefully it'll work in moz soon.