umberella
Matthew Hall
ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk.remove (Nicholas Jackson) wrote:
> Just saw this on the BBC news website:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1992000/1992720.stm
>
> I'd like to reassure you all that there are witnesses to confirm that I
> was the other side of the world when it happened.
I wouldn't expect you to get involved in an argument about parking,
either.
--
Matthew Hall - matthew at flightlessbird dot fsnet dot co dot uk
http://www.flightlessbird.fsnet.co.uk
Strength is wasted on the strong
Martin Eyles
> Just saw this on the BBC news website:
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1992000/1992720.s
tm
>
> I'd like to reassure you all that there are witnesses to confirm that I
> was the other side of the world when it happened.
Well I really think we should have your black umbrella taken to the lab for
forensic test, just to confirm this ;-p
> I can't even take the piano back - it's full of spoons.
Is this a reference to black books?
ME
--
Martin Eyles
martin...@bigfoot.com
http://martineyles.tk
Danny at Chrastina dot net
> Nicholas Jackson <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk.remove> wrote:
> > numbers of slow-moving people have wombled, aimlessly, into my way
> > [1]. In those situations, I often fantasise about yelling ``Oh for the
> > love of Christ *get out of my way*!''
In London, I don't think it would count as particularly antisocial
to yell like this at someone.
> ... If Citizenship is going to make it onto the National Curriculum,
> then I do hope that something about this stupidity goes onto the
> syllabus.
I find that the worst people for this crime are Warwick
undergraduates, who walk almost impossibly slowly and choose to congregate
in the narrowest part of any thoroughfare to converse. Don't they have any
fucking work to do?
--
Danny.
That's 'cause you're lying on me.
Crazy Dave
> scripsit Matthew Hall ...
> > ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk.remove (Nicholas Jackson) wrote:
> >> scripsit Matthew Hall ...
> >> I often fantasise about yelling ``Oh for the
> >> love of Christ *get out of my way*!'' and transfixing one or more of
> >> the ditherers with my umbrella.
> >Never having previously seen this meaning of the word "transfix", I was
> >wondering whether your umbrella was so fine that passers were forced to
> >stop and stare at it.
> That's more or less correct - the sight of someone lying on the ground
> with an umbrella stabbed through them is pretty likely to cause other
> passersby to stop and stare, I imagine.
It's not often a post acually makes me lol, but this one did. :)
--
Crazy Dave - http://www.davemansfield.com
Bomb, Kill, President, Prime minister, Anthrax. (Hello GCHQ)
Crazy Dave
> I find that the worst people for this crime are Warwick
> undergraduates, who walk almost impossibly slowly and choose to congregate
> in the narrowest part of any thoroughfare to converse. Don't they have any
> fucking work to do?
You are more likely to bump into someone you know when passing a stream of
people in the other direction. This may occurs when there's only room for the
two of you to stand side by side and block th passage. Should you A) stop in
the middle of the corridoor, B) ignore them C) mumble hi and keep walking, or
D) turn around and join them.
I'd say D) usually but most people seem to go for A).
Andrew N
> Nicholas Jackson <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk.remove> wrote:
> > numbers of slow-moving people have wombled, aimlessly, into my way
> > love of Christ *get out of my way*!'' and transfixing one or more of
>
> to look at something (or answer a mobile phone). Also a problem in
> supermarkets when two people start chatting, and their combined family
> and trolleys block the entire aisle, so you either have to appear
> anti-social and push your way through, or else take a long detour.
<snip!>
Or those that decide to take their office work on the train with them
in the morning and make loud business type phone calls and so on.
This is good, we're all getting the hang of the "hate the common pleb"
way of thinking. Come up with some twisted yet amusing and original
ways of pleb removal and I'll have my dark army in no time...
And since I can't be bothered to start a new thread, see what I found
on the adobe website:
quote = """
Download Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 for Windows (8.6MB, in English)
Download Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 with Search and Accessibility for
Windows (10.0MB, in English)
Download Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 for Mac OS (0.7MB, in English)
"""
How the hell do you explain the 7.9MB discrepancy?
Danny at Chrastina dot net
> Danny at Chrastina dot net wrote:
>
> > I find that the worst people for this crime are Warwick
> > undergraduates, who walk almost impossibly slowly and choose to congregate
> > in the narrowest part of any thoroughfare to converse. Don't they have any
> > fucking work to do?
>
> You are more likely to bump into someone you know when passing a stream of
> people in the other direction. This may occurs when there's only room for the
> two of you to stand side by side and block th passage. Should you A) stop in
> the middle of the corridoor, B) ignore them C) mumble hi and keep walking, or
> D) turn around and join them.
>
> I'd say D) usually but most people seem to go for A).
Or at least, it doesn't occur to these idiots to just move to a
position out of the main flow of traffic. At the speed they walk, it would
take them half an hour to move a couple of metres to one side and this
would make them late for their next drinking session.
--
Danny.
Correction: seven feet. Two of those feet were mine.
Julie Bellingham
"Danny at Chrastina dot net" <Da...@chrastina.notreally> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.02052...@london.ethz.ch...
My pet hate is people who stop to chat in doorways, at lift exits and the
top and bottom of stairs. The worst though is stopping at the bottom of an
escalator. The escalator doesn't stop moving just because they do, and
they're either oblivious to the mayhem behind them or they don't care. In a
PMT moment, I did sort of nudge (well, kick) the ankles of someone commiting
this crime. My feet had nowhere else to go though, so it was their fault,
and I did point this out to them. :-)
Julie
josie
> Nicholas Jackson <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk.remove> wrote:
> > numbers of slow-moving people have wombled, aimlessly, into my way
> > [1]. In those situations, I often fantasise about yelling ``Oh for the
> > love of Christ *get out of my way*!'' and transfixing one or more of
>
> It's the ones who are directly in front of you, and then stop suddenly
> to look at something (or answer a mobile phone). Also a problem in
> supermarkets when two people start chatting, and their combined family
> and trolleys block the entire aisle, so you either have to appear
> anti-social and push your way through, or else take a long detour.
I always find myself singing that song off Smell of Reeves and
Mortimer when I'm in sSkipton (old-lady touristy town) and I'm
shuffling along behind a couple of coach-loads of old dears, with a
teenager with a pram bashing my ankles from behind, that song whose
chorus goes "meals on wheels; GET OUT OF MY WA-AY!"
> the same principle in other situations? If Citizenship is going to
> make it onto the National Curriculum, then I do hope that something
> about this stupidity goes onto the syllabus.
Nah; you can't expect the Govt to know about stuff like commonsense
and good behaviour. But they'll spend 14million setting up a committee
to define them if you like.
jo.
RjY
>How the hell do you explain the 7.9MB discrepancy?
I'm guessing it's a typo. Most likely 9.7, not 0.7. But that's just a
guess. Someone with a fast connection can do the downloads and redirect
to /dev/null (no not you Devin) and see what happens.
--
RjY at The Realm of anARCHy .co.uk >o o< http://www.triv.org.uk/~rjy/
"Kids, you tried your best; and you failed miserably.
The lesson is: never try"
dev/null
>Andrew N typed...
>>How the hell do you explain the 7.9MB discrepancy?
>
>I'm guessing it's a typo. Most likely 9.7, not 0.7. But that's just a
>guess. Someone with a fast connection can do the downloads and redirect
>to /dev/null (no not you Devin) and see what happens.
Well, I did, and the MacOS X file ar505enu.bin is 712,448bytes (~700K).
Perhaps MacOS has built in libraries for interpreting pdf documents, so
doesn't need many new files. Alternatively, perhaps the win32 installer
needs many different versions of the same file to provide compatibility
all the way back to win95. The latter however, is not supported by the
fact that, installed, it takes ~12.4MB.
Dave Taylor
> Andrew N typed...
>>How the hell do you explain the 7.9MB discrepancy?
> I'm guessing it's a typo. Most likely 9.7, not 0.7. But that's just a
> guess. Someone with a fast connection can do the downloads and redirect
> to /dev/null (no not you Devin) and see what happens.
That was my thought, but no - it says 700kb, not 0.7Mb.
[Pauses to actually do the download]
Nope, definitely 695kb. Weird, (unless MacOS >= 8.6 comes with Acrobat Reader
4.x, and so the installer just needs to update a few files or something)
--
Dave Taylor
"There was something strange about the way he walked - much more
vertical than usual"
[Simpsons]
Peter Oliver
> In article <3ce94a21$0$29605$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net>, RjY wrote:
>>Andrew N typed...
>>>How the hell do you explain the 7.9MB discrepancy?
>>
>>I'm guessing it's a typo. Most likely 9.7, not 0.7. But that's just a
>>guess. Someone with a fast connection can do the downloads and redirect
>>to /dev/null (no not you Devin) and see what happens.
>
> Well, I did, and the MacOS X file ar505enu.bin is 712,448bytes (~700K).
>
> Perhaps MacOS has built in libraries for interpreting pdf documents, so
> doesn't need many new files.
You hit the nail on the head, there. The whole MacOS X desktop is,
I think I heard, drawn in PDF. Similarly, Sun used to have a PostScript
driven system called NeWS before X11 took over.
--
Peter Oliver
"Windmills are squeezy"
Nicholas Jackson
> Similarly, Sun used to have a PostScript
>driven system called NeWS before X11 took over.
Irix version 3 did too, from what I remember. And NeXTStep was based
on a display postscript environment. NeXT, I believe, was the company
Steve Jobs founded after he left Apple, so there's a bit of a common
trend there.
nicholas
--
Our universe is a fragile house of atoms, held together by the weak
mortar of cause-and-effect. One magician would be two too many.
Martin Eyles
> undergraduates, who walk almost impossibly slowly and choose to congregate
> in the narrowest part of any thoroughfare to converse. Don't they have any
> fucking work to do?
This is undergraduates we're talking about - Of course they don't have any
work to do ;-)
Martin Eyles
> quote = """
> Download Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 for Windows (8.6MB, in English)
> Download Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 with Search and Accessibility for
> Windows (10.0MB, in English)
> Download Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 for Mac OS (0.7MB, in English)
> """
>
> How the hell do you explain the 7.9MB discrepancy?
There is always the posibilty that the mac downloaed is a "stub" installer,
that runs, and then downloads more material from the internet. Quicktime,
Mozilla, and I think Winamp support this option on thier websites.
Nicholas Barton
> These people all presumably drive cars, and yet they rarely seem to
> stop them in the middle of the road without warning. If they must,
> then they pull over to get out of people's way.
There are the ones who pootle along at way under the speed limit and don't
give you a chance to pass, though, and those who sit in the middle lane of
the motorway doing 65.
> Why can't they apply the same principle in other situations? If
> Citizenship is going to make it onto the National Curriculum, then I
> do hope that something about this stupidity goes onto the syllabus.
See: Ken's plan for slow and fast pedestrian lanes on London pavements.
Nick
--
"holding a dog in slow-motion"
Nicholas Jackson
> Also a problem in
>supermarkets when two people start chatting, and their combined family
>and trolleys block the entire aisle, so you either have to appear
>anti-social and push your way through, or else take a long detour.
Don't get me started on the subject of shopping trolleys.
nicholas
--
I ate all your bees!
Nicholas Jackson
> In London, I don't think it would count as particularly antisocial
>to yell like this at someone.
Jolly good. What about stabbing them with an umbrella?
I was having a conversation about this sort of thing with a friend of
mine who lives in London. I asked him how he could stand any of it
(but in particular the rather irksome matter of slow-moving morons
getting in the way). He said that it really irritates you for the
first few months you live there, then one day you just snap, and start
pushing people to the ground, stepping over their supine and protesting
forms, and continuing on your way.
Jeremy Austin
news:slrnaek1tj...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk:
> scripsit Peter Oliver ...
>> Similarly, Sun used to have a PostScript
>>driven system called NeWS before X11 took over.
>
> Irix version 3 did too, from what I remember. And NeXTStep was based
> on a display postscript environment. NeXT, I believe, was the company
> Steve Jobs founded after he left Apple, so there's a bit of a common
> trend there.
Interestingly, after a night hitting the opium pretty hard, I came up
with the idea of a windowing system based on a (perhaps mutated) html,
but I was interupted by some visitors so didn't have time to complete my
implementation.
Jez.
Nicholas Barton
>
> > I find that the worst people for this crime are Warwick
> > undergraduates, who walk almost impossibly slowly and choose to congregate
> > in the narrowest part of any thoroughfare to converse. Don't they have any
> > fucking work to do?
>
> You are more likely to bump into someone you know when passing a stream of
> people in the other direction. This may occurs when there's only room for the
> two of you to stand side by side and block th passage. Should you A) stop in
> the middle of the corridoor, B) ignore them C) mumble hi and keep walking, or
> D) turn around and join them.
>
> I'd say D) usually but most people seem to go for A).
Thinking of a place on campus that seems particularly prone to this, I
decided to check on the exact dictionary definition of "Concourse". I got:
1 : an act or process of coming together and merging
2 : a meeting produced by voluntary or spontaneous coming together
3 a : an open space where roads or paths meet b : an open space or hall
(as in a railroad terminal) where crowds gather
So that explains why I can never fucking get through...
Nicholas Barton
> scripsit Peter Oliver ...
> > Similarly, Sun used to have a PostScript
> >driven system called NeWS before X11 took over.
>
> Irix version 3 did too, from what I remember. And NeXTStep was based
> on a display postscript environment. NeXT, I believe, was the company
> Steve Jobs founded after he left Apple, so there's a bit of a common
> trend there.
Yes, I was going to ask about NeXT, when Peter mentioned NeWS there. My
physics department when I was an undergrad used to have a load of NeXT
machines for us to use (well, `a load' was about 17). I quite liked them,
although they were a bit old and slow, and had greyscale monitors.
Nicholas Jackson
>See: Ken's plan for slow and fast pedestrian lanes on London pavements.
I've often mused on the necessity of just such a scheme. London
definitely needs it, but I'd like to see it introduced elsewhere too.
And tougher penalties for bumbling morons who stand around in the middle
of a cycle path, of course.
Nicholas Jackson
>Yes, I was going to ask about NeXT, when Peter mentioned NeWS there. My
>physics department when I was an undergrad used to have a load of NeXT
>machines for us to use (well, `a load' was about 17). I quite liked them,
>although they were a bit old and slow, and had greyscale monitors.
They were quite stylish from what I remember of them - matt black cubes
and slabs, at a time when the majority of machines were beige pizza
boxes.
Nicholas Jackson
>Interestingly, after a night hitting the opium pretty hard, I came up
>with the idea of a windowing system based on a (perhaps mutated) html,
>but I was interupted by some visitors so didn't have time to complete my
>implementation.
Which reminds me of a question I've had for some time: Where the hell
actually is Porlock? It sounds like a monster from an H.G.Wells
novel.
nicholas (in CERN, did Tim Berners-Lee a stately mark-up language
decree...)
ph...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
: And tougher penalties for bumbling morons who stand around in the middle
: of a cycle path, of course.:
two foot of 3/16" steel wire spot welded to the hubs...
--
"When it comes to Sex,
there are certain things that should always be left unknown.
And, with my luck, they probably will be."
(Woody Allen)
cs...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
> See: Ken's plan for slow and fast pedestrian lanes on London pavements.
Yes, but how many people ignore:
1) The up / down lanes on that bit of pavement leading out of Birmingham
New Street towards the big waterstones
2) The bike lanes next to Claycroft
?
Answer: enough to make them irritating.
I sometimes try to scare people walking in the bike lane by overtaking
them and cutting it fine, to wake them up a bit. It rarely seems to
have much effect on them.
graham
Matthew Hall
ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk.remove (Nicholas Jackson) wrote:
> scripsit Jeremy Austin ...
> >Interestingly, after a night hitting the opium pretty hard, I came up
> >with the idea of a windowing system based on a (perhaps mutated) html,
> >but I was interupted by some visitors so didn't have time to complete my
> >implementation.
>
> Which reminds me of a question I've had for some time: Where the hell
> actually is Porlock? It sounds like a monster from an H.G.Wells
> novel.
On the north coast of Somerset. I've been there, long ago.
--
Matthew Hall - matthew at flightlessbird dot fsnet dot co dot uk
http://www.flightlessbird.fsnet.co.uk
Strength is wasted on the strong
Nicholas Barton
> In article <slrnaektik...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk>,
> ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk.remove (Nicholas Jackson) wrote:
>
> > Which reminds me of a question I've had for some time: Where the hell
> > actually is Porlock? It sounds like a monster from an H.G.Wells
> > novel.
>
> On the north coast of Somerset. I've been there, long ago.
How long ago? You didn't interrupt him, did you?
Nicholas Jackson
>Nicholas Jackson <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk.remove> wrote:
>: And tougher penalties for bumbling morons who stand around in the middle
>: of a cycle path, of course.:
>
>two foot of 3/16" steel wire spot welded to the hubs...
It's tempting. Except that now there'll be a news story about someone
in Spain or somewhere who's been truncated at the knees by an irate
cyclist. And I'll get hauled in for questioning.
nicholas
--
Too many psycopaths, not enough cycle-paths
Nicholas Jackson
>I sometimes try to scare people walking in the bike lane by overtaking
>them and cutting it fine, to wake them up a bit. It rarely seems to
>have much effect on them.
I do this, too, and I've had mixed results ranging from complete
obliviousness through to the subject's nervous relocation to the
perfectly decent pavement they'd previously and unaccountably
eschewed.
A year or so back, I was cycling, down one of those clearly-marked
green cycle lanes in the subways in Coventry. Big crowd of people
coming the other way, including woman with several children. I slow
down to a very slow walking pace, patiently smiling in a ``I'd like you
to realise you're in my way and start being a bit more considerate
right about now'' sort of way. She glances at me and haughtily
announces, to nobody in particular, ``There's always one, isn't
there?''
Dumbstruck, I fail to regain my powers of speech in sufficient time to
sardonically alert her to the damn great white line, the green asphalt,
and the bloody great pictures of bicycles at regular intervals, and
have to content myself with mumbled obscenities after she's gone.
(Not quite sure why that drifted into the present tense about halfway
through.)
nicholas
Dafydd y garreg wen
k.ac.uk>, Nicholas Barton <ni...@nickbartontakethispartout.org> writes
The solution, as ever, lies with Douglas Adams.
Dave
Matthew Hall
dev/null
But the odd occasion when it causes someone to scream makes it all
worthwhile :)
RjY
>There are the ones who pootle along at way under the speed limit and don't
>give you a chance to pass, though, and those who sit in the middle lane of
>the motorway doing 65.
Oh no(!) Someone's actually going at UNDER THE SPEED LIMIT ON THE
MOTORWAY(!) Call the cops(!)
65 is only 5 under the limit so legally you can't go much faster, so if
you're going so fast as to neeeeeeed to overtake, then you're probably
a mental driver (hi Rutherford!) and then in my opinion you deserve
everything you get. But the poor guy you ram at 105mph doesn't.
>See: Ken's plan for slow and fast pedestrian lanes on London pavements.
Again I want to know why people need to hurry around so much! If you're
that late you should have left earlier.
Sorry if anyone takes this personally.
--
RjY at The Realm of anARCHy .co.uk >o o< http://www.triv.org.uk/~rjy/
"Men who have a pierced ear are better prepared for marriage -
they've experienced pain, and bought jewellery"
Rutherford
> Nicholas Barton typed...
> >There are the ones who pootle along at way under the speed limit and don't
> >give you a chance to pass, though, and those who sit in the middle lane of
> >the motorway doing 65.
> Oh no(!) Someone's actually going at UNDER THE SPEED LIMIT ON THE
> MOTORWAY(!) Call the cops(!)
Wait for it...
> 65 is only 5 under the limit so legally you can't go much faster, so if
> you're going so fast as to neeeeeeed to overtake, then you're probably
> a mental driver (hi Rutherford!) and then in my opinion you deserve
> everything you get. But the poor guy you ram at 105mph doesn't.
Why did I just know my name would turn up somewhere in this post? I'm not
that bad a driver. Honest! One thing I always do, though, is leave plenty
of room in front. I really do wonder about these people who seem to think
they can get away with a couple of car lengths between them and the car in
front while burning down the M40 at 90mph - that's the sort of behaviour
that had me sit[1] in a traffic jam on the M4 for five hours waiting for
them to clear up the mess.
> >See: Ken's plan for slow and fast pedestrian lanes on London pavements.
> Again I want to know why people need to hurry around so much! If you're
> that late you should have left earlier.
Well, quite. In my experience there *is* no place to slip out of the crowd
and look at a map without getting mobbed by umbrella-wielding loons! :-P
> Sorry if anyone takes this personally.
!
--
Simon Heywood
http://www.simonheywood.org.uk/
We apologise for the inconvenience.
[1] After the first hour or so I'd had enough and went for a walk in a
nearby field with some fellow motorists.
Nicholas Barton
> >There are the ones who pootle along at way under the speed limit and don't
> >give you a chance to pass, though, and those who sit in the middle lane of
> >the motorway doing 65.
>
> Oh no(!) Someone's actually going at UNDER THE SPEED LIMIT ON THE
> MOTORWAY(!) Call the cops(!)
>
> 65 is only 5 under the limit so legally you can't go much faster, so if
> you're going so fast as to neeeeeeed to overtake, then you're probably
> a mental driver (hi Rutherford!) and then in my opinion you deserve
> everything you get. But the poor guy you ram at 105mph doesn't.
You miss the point. I said "in the middle lane". Sorry, I should have
probably added "when the inside lane is clear". This causes no end of
problems. Even if you're only going 5 mph faster than them (and want to
continue at that speed), you will need to overtake. You're not supposed to
undertake them (it's dangerous for other drivers, who don't expect faster
vehicles to be passing them on the inside), so you have to come all the
way from the inside lane, to the middle lane, to the outside, go past them
and then back into the middle lane and finally the inside lane again.
Multiply this by even a few other cars when it's moderately busy and you
create a whole load of congestion for which there's totally no need.
That's not even considering the presence of drivers going significantly
over the speed limit (which there inevitably are), and the general
annoyance caused to other drivers by all this.
> >See: Ken's plan for slow and fast pedestrian lanes on London pavements.
>
> Again I want to know why people need to hurry around so much! If you're
> that late you should have left earlier.
(i) That might not be an option - you just got told you had to go
somewhere as soon as possible with no warning, for example.
(ii) It's not the point again. It isn't your business to decide for other
pedestrians how fast they should walk or why. You're perfectly entitled to
walk as slowly as you like PROVIDED you don't enforce that decision on
others by blocking their way and stopping them getting past (similarly,
you're free to walk or run as fast as you like provided you don't cause a
nuisance or danger to others by it). It's the same as the motorway thing -
do what you like as long as you're not stopping others from doing so by
your actions.
> Sorry if anyone takes this personally.
Not at all, but you're just wrong. It's about the basic reciprocity that's
the basis of civilized human society.
cs...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
> Not at all, but you're just wrong. It's about the basic reciprocity that's
> the basis of civilized human society.
It ocurred to me today that there are a load of rules about what you should
do in certain fairly common situations, and I get annoyed when people don't
follow them. Only, these rules are ones that I've made up and that no one
else has any reason to know. The most picky of these was the one violated
by the people in front of me in the supermarket queue, which is that when
your stuff is on the conveyor, you should position yourself and your trolley
in line with it, so that the "Next customer here" marker is in line
with the back of the trolley.
I've absolutely no idea how I came up with this rule, or why it's important
but I still get annoyed when people who are clearly oblivious to it leave
their trolleys about one trolley length behind their place on the conveyor
belt.
Perhaps I'll start writing these down. That'll settle once and for all
any debate about whether I'm anally retentive.
g.
Nicholas Barton
> Nicholas Barton <ni...@nickbartontakethispartout.org> wrote:
> > Not at all, but you're just wrong. It's about the basic reciprocity that's
> > the basis of civilized human society.
>
> It ocurred to me today that there are a load of rules about what you should
> do in certain fairly common situations, and I get annoyed when people don't
> follow them. Only, these rules are ones that I've made up and that no one
> else has any reason to know. The most picky of these was the one violated
> by the people in front of me in the supermarket queue, which is that when
> your stuff is on the conveyor, you should position yourself and your trolley
> in line with it, so that the "Next customer here" marker is in line
> with the back of the trolley.
>
> I've absolutely no idea how I came up with this rule, or why it's important
> but I still get annoyed when people who are clearly oblivious to it leave
> their trolleys about one trolley length behind their place on the conveyor
> belt.
You're already dealing with people who've thought to put the marker behind
their shopping (or at least pass it to you), so that's a bonus at least.
> Perhaps I'll start writing these down. That'll settle once and for all
> any debate about whether I'm anally retentive.
And on these principles, my brothers, we shall set up a new republic -
Cormodia - where man can live without fear of persecution from his fellow
man. Who is with me? Be brave, stand up and let yourself be counted among
us.
Michael S. Glees
Dafydd y garreg wen schrieb:
>
> >
> >How long ago? You didn't interrupt him, did you?
>
> The solution, as ever, lies with Douglas Adams.
42???
Cheers,
Michael
Michael S. Glees
cs...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk schrieb:
>
> Yes, but how many people ignore:
> 1) The up / down lanes on that bit of pavement leading out of Birmingham
> New Street towards the big waterstones
I went there once and started wondering how to cross the lane with the
"traffic" coming from ahead in order to get to one of the shops on the
side... Maybe they should have small roundabouts there...
Cheers,
Michael
Michael S. Glees
RjY schrieb:
>
> Nicholas Barton typed...
> >There are the ones who pootle along at way under the speed limit and don't
> >give you a chance to pass, though, and those who sit in the middle lane of
> >the motorway doing 65.
>
> Oh no(!) Someone's actually going at UNDER THE SPEED LIMIT ON THE
> MOTORWAY(!) Call the cops(!)
>
BTW: Have I ever mentioned that, apart from the fact that driving on the
left hand side in general is fun, driving on your motorways sucks,
simply because you're only allowed to drive at about 112 kph? It takes
ages to get from A to B even when there's hardly any traffic (e.g. north
of Carlisle)...
Cheers,
Michael
(against general speed limits on motorways!)
(...as along as his car is fast enough...) ;-)
RjY
>On 21 May 2002, RjY wrote:
>> 65 is only 5 under the limit so legally you can't go much faster, so if
>> you're going so fast as to neeeeeeed to overtake, then you're probably
>> a mental driver (hi Rutherford!) and then in my opinion you deserve
>> everything you get. But the poor guy you ram at 105mph doesn't.
>Why did I just know my name would turn up somewhere in this post? I'm not
>that bad a driver. Honest! One thing I always do, though, is leave plenty
>of room in front. I really do wonder about these people who seem to think
>they can get away with a couple of car lengths between them and the car in
I don't think you're a bad driver, at least no worse than many. I think
you go too fast. Did anyone see John Peel on Room 101, with his "driving
through Essex" thing?
And anyway, I called you "squire" like once or twice over summer 2000
and for about a year afterwards you threw it back at me, and I've been
in your car on about two occasions over summer 2001 when you drove like
a maniac and so I think I've got a year in which to throw that back at
you, of which two or three more months are remaining, and I'm going to
make the best of them:-)
>> Sorry if anyone takes this personally.
>!
I meant apart from you. And that recently I've made a few *general*
remarks that have been taken personally and I got yelled at.
--
RjY at The Realm of anARCHy .co.uk >o o< http://www.triv.org.uk/~rjy/
"We feel neither highs nor lows."
RjY
>On 21 May 2002, RjY wrote:
>> 65 is only 5 under the limit so legally you can't go much faster, so if
>> you're going so fast as to neeeeeeed to overtake, then you're probably
>> a mental driver (hi Rutherford!) and then in my opinion you deserve
>> everything you get. But the poor guy you ram at 105mph doesn't.
>You miss the point. I said "in the middle lane". Sorry, I should have
>probably added "when the inside lane is clear". This causes no end of
>problems. Even if you're only going 5 mph faster than them (and want to
>continue at that speed), you will need to overtake. You're not supposed to
>undertake them (it's dangerous for other drivers, who don't expect faster
>vehicles to be passing them on the inside), so you have to come all the
>way from the inside lane, to the middle lane, to the outside, go past them
>and then back into the middle lane and finally the inside lane again.
>Multiply this by even a few other cars when it's moderately busy and you
>create a whole load of congestion for which there's totally no need.
>That's not even considering the presence of drivers going significantly
>over the speed limit (which there inevitably are), and the general
>annoyance caused to other drivers by all this.
Okay fair enough. What you're saying is, everyone who's doing less than
70 should be in the inside lane so they can be safely overtaken by those
who are, right? But where do people like my mum, who on the rare
occasions she uses the motorway, won't go much above 55 or so, go?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that's perfectly legal, so I don't
think you can say she shouldn't be using the motorway; I think just
because you can go at 70 doesn't mean you should. Never mind above it.
>> Again I want to know why people need to hurry around so much! If you're
>> that late you should have left earlier.
>(i) That might not be an option - you just got told you had to go
>somewhere as soon as possible with no warning, for example.
All right, but then you've got a valid excuse if you're late because it
was your stupid boss being forgetful again (or whatever)
>(ii) It's not the point again. It isn't your business to decide for other
>pedestrians how fast they should walk or why. You're perfectly entitled to
>walk as slowly as you like PROVIDED you don't enforce that decision on
>others by blocking their way and stopping them getting past (similarly,
>you're free to walk or run as fast as you like provided you don't cause a
>nuisance or danger to others by it). It's the same as the motorway thing -
>do what you like as long as you're not stopping others from doing so by
>your actions.
That's fair enough. Although I might say people walking in front of you
is only annoying, it's not like it might kill you in a motorway pile-up.
>> Sorry if anyone takes this personally.
>Not at all, but you're just wrong. It's about the basic reciprocity that's
>the basis of civilized human society.
Basic reciprocity?! Nice in theory but due to greedy human nature it's
never going to work in practice, there'll always be those who take
advantage!
Anyway I'd like to close this can of worms now, it's getting late:-)
--
RjY at The Realm of anARCHy .co.uk >o o< http://www.triv.org.uk/~rjy/
"The horrendous visage of the biggest demon
you've ever seen crumbles before you, after
you pump your rockets into his exposed brain"
RjY
>On 21 May 2002, RjY wrote:
>> 65 is only 5 under the limit so legally you can't go much faster, so if
>> you're going so fast as to neeeeeeed to overtake, then you're probably
>> a mental driver (hi Rutherford!) and then in my opinion you deserve
>> everything you get. But the poor guy you ram at 105mph doesn't.
>Why did I just know my name would turn up somewhere in this post? I'm not
>that bad a driver. Honest! One thing I always do, though, is leave plenty
>of room in front. I really do wonder about these people who seem to think
>they can get away with a couple of car lengths between them and the car in
I don't think you're a bad driver, at least no worse than many. I think
you go too fast. Which reminds me, on a vaguely related note did anyone
see John Peel on Room 101, with his "driving through Essex" thing?
And anyway, if you remember I called you "squire" like once or twice
over summer 2000 and for about a year afterwards you like threw it back
at me and I've been in your car on about like two occasions over summer
2001 when you drove like a maniac and so I think I've got a year in
which to throw that back at you, of which like two or three more months
are remaining so like I'm going to make the best of them:-)
>> Sorry if anyone takes this personally.
>!
I meant apart from you. And that recently I've made a few *general*
remarks that have been taken personally and I got yelled at.
--
RjY at The Realm of anARCHy .co.uk >o o< http://www.triv.org.uk/~rjy/
Danny at Chrastina dot net
> Dafydd y garreg wen schrieb:
> >
> > >How long ago? You didn't interrupt him, did you?
> >
> > The solution, as ever, lies with Douglas Adams.
>
> 42???
No, read Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.
Has anyone read Salmon of Doubt, by the way?
--
Danny.
I am in agony, as I do not have false kneecaps.
Michael S. Glees
RjY schrieb:
>
>
> Okay fair enough. What you're saying is, everyone who's doing less than
> 70 should be in the inside lane so they can be safely overtaken by those
> who are, right? But where do people like my mum, who on the rare
> occasions she uses the motorway, won't go much above 55 or so, go?
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that's perfectly legal, so I don't
> think you can say she shouldn't be using the motorway; I think just
> because you can go at 70 doesn't mean you should. Never mind above it.
>
Do you have a minimum speed for motorways in the UK?
Cheers,
Michael
Danny at Chrastina dot net
> Okay fair enough. What you're saying is, everyone who's doing less than
> 70 should be in the inside lane so they can be safely overtaken by those
> who are, right?
It's these dickheads who think that there are fast lanes and slow
lanes... you should be in the "slow" lane no matter what speed you're
doing, provided that there isn't already someone there (like a
speed-governed lorry) that you have to go round or you're at a junction
with filter lanes.
I'm fairly sure that most car speedometers are only calibrated to
within 10% and the police will give you this leeway.
> But where do people like my mum, who on the rare occasions she uses the
> motorway, won't go much above 55 or so, go? Correct me if I'm wrong but
> I thought that's perfectly legal...
Yes, it is. The lower limit is actually 25mph, when you need to
either have an orange flashing light or fuck right off.
Has everyone seen the video of the two motorists reversing back
along the hard shoulder of a slip road, and the one overtaking the other?
--
Danny.
You made that bit up, didn't you?
Nicholas Jackson
>Nicholas Barton typed...
>>See: Ken's plan for slow and fast pedestrian lanes on London pavements.
>
>Again I want to know why people need to hurry around so much! If you're
>that late you should have left earlier.
OK, here's an example: I'm working in Kent during the week at the
moment. If I leave work at (just before) 3pm on a friday I don't
generally get home until a little before 8pm. This is because the
15:18 train from Sandwich isn't scheduled to get to Charing Cross until
17:38. The 18:10 from Euston is then scheduled to get to Coventry by
19:26, leaving me a few minutes to nip over to platform 4 and get the
19:33 to Wolverhampton, which is scheduled to get to Canley for 19:35.
So, to pick the most irksome section of my journey, in theory I have 32
minutes to get from Charing Cross to Euston, which should be plenty of
time.
Except that:
* Connex SouthEastern's trains date from the early Reformation period,
and are regularly up to ten or fifteen minutes late getting into
London. It always amuses me when the guard announces ``After
Sevenoaks, this train will be fast to Waterloo East and Charing
Cross.'' Fast in the sense of ``Likely to get there today without
many of the doors actually dropping off,'' one assumes.
* I'm often a bit peckish by 6pm, so I usually buy a sandwich from one
of the shops at Euston. Depending on queues, allow a few minutes for
this.
* The platforms at Euston are generally closed a couple of minutes
before the train leaves.
* This being rush hour on a friday evening in the middle of London,
there usually tends to be a fair number of people travelling on the
Northern Line. On occasion there's just no room and I have to wait
for the next train, which can add a few minutes to my journey time.
So, in a worst-case scenario, I might have under fifteen minutes to get
between Charing Cross and Euston. Add in a few minutes at either end
fighting my way up and down stairs and escalators, and things become
critical - just one slow-moving poltroon can cause disaster for my
plans to get home at a vaguely reasonable time.
If I miss the 18:10, then there's another one half an hour later, but
generally, after a hard week at work, I just want to get home, have
some dinner, put my feet up, and watch the tv. So I tend to get a bit
irked with people dawdling around, standing in the way, nattering on
their mobile 'phones, because even a couple of minutes' delay can
postpone the much-needed postprandial pedal elevation.
It's already taking me close to five hours to get home, I don't want
some dawdling buffoon adding another thirty minutes to that because
they can't be bothered to stand on the right-hand side of the
escalator.
But yes, I kind of agree with you in general - I shouldn't be in quite
so much of a rush all the time. And indeed, I'm not always in such a
hurry (although perhaps my desire to get the hell out of London as fast
as possible is understandable) - but when I'm in a more relaxed mood, I
do try to ensure I don't get in the way of someone who is (legitimately
or otherwise) in a hurry.
nicholas
--
Hawk the Slayer's rubbish!
Danny at Chrastina dot net
> On Tue, 21 May 2002 cs...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk wrote:
> > Nicholas Barton <ni...@nickbartontakethispartout.org> wrote:
> > > Not at all, but you're just wrong. It's about the basic reciprocity that's
> > > the basis of civilized human society.
> >
> > It ocurred to me today that there are a load of rules about what you
> > should do in certain fairly common situations, and I get annoyed when
> > people don't follow them. Only, these rules are ones that I've made
> > up and that no one else has any reason to know. The most picky of
> > these was the one violated by the people in front of me in the
> > supermarket queue, which is that when your stuff is on the conveyor,
> > you should position yourself and your trolley in line with it, so that
> > the "Next customer here" marker is in line with the back of the
> > trolley.
>
> You're already dealing with people who've thought to put the marker behind
> their shopping (or at least pass it to you), so that's a bonus at least.
You've reminded me about idiots who pay for a chocolate bar and a
can of lemonade with a credit card, now.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&q=%22%2Bsupermarket+%2Brage%22&lr=
--
Danny.
The lake's going down!
Nicholas Jackson
>I've absolutely no idea how I came up with this rule, or why it's important
>but I still get annoyed when people who are clearly oblivious to it leave
>their trolleys about one trolley length behind their place on the conveyor
>belt.
I think that's a reasonable rule, too - it's something that irks me
slightly too.
Sometime last year I was waiting in Sainsbury's, with my basket of
shopping, in the queue behind a couple with an enormous trolley (which,
I noticed, contained rather fewer items than my basket). They unloaded
the trolley, put everything on the conveyor belt, and wandered up to
the checkout, leaving the trolley at an angle, at the mouth of the
checkout aisle. I politely alerted them to the inconvenience they were
subjecting me to (with an ``ahem!'' or something) and, with a grunt of
apology they moved the trolley after them. They paid for their
groceries, loaded them into bags and wandered off, leaving the trolley
in the way.
So I shot them.
>Perhaps I'll start writing these down. That'll settle once and for all
>any debate about whether I'm anally retentive.
I think I'm going to have to compile a second edition of my List - it's
quite a therapeutic thing to do, and the first edition is rather out of
date now.
Danny at Chrastina dot net
> scripsit cs...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk ...
> >I sometimes try to scare people walking in the bike lane by overtaking
> >them and cutting it fine, to wake them up a bit. It rarely seems to
> >have much effect on them.
>
> ... She glances at me and haughtily announces, to nobody in particular,
> ``There's always one, isn't there?''
Once, cycling at a decent speed down the middle of quite an
important road in Cambridge (ie, not exactly a side-street) a serene
elegant bitch walked serenely and elegantly across the road on a perfect
collision course with me. I screeched to a halt about a metre from her and
glared. Stupid cow.
A friend also had narrowly avoided hitting someone who had stepped
out into the road in his path, whose defence was "I only stepped out a
little way into the road."
--
Danny.
I've got it written down on a piece of paper.
Martin Eyles
> Interestingly, after a night hitting the opium pretty hard, I came up
> with the idea of a windowing system based on a (perhaps mutated) html,
> but I was interupted by some visitors so didn't have time to complete my
> implementation.
Sounds like Mozilla to me
--
Martin Eyles
martin...@bigfoot.com
http://martineyles.tk
Martin Eyles
> Dafydd y garreg wen schrieb:
>
> 42???
In the spirit of Jeopardy....
what is six multiplied by nine
ME
Martin Eyles
I think it's a case of going up to the next junction (past the shop), doing
a complete turn, so you're in the other lane, going in the other direction,
and then turning off (as seen on many roads, with a turn off between two
roundabouts, that can only be accessed from one side of the road).
Martin Eyles
> did anyone
> see John Peel on Room 101, with his "driving through Essex" thing?
yes. - It was fairly convincing - I'm not too sure I want to drive in Essex
now (although I have no experience of this)
Martin Eyles
> On 22 May 2002, RjY wrote:
>
> > Okay fair enough. What you're saying is, everyone who's doing less than
> > 70 should be in the inside lane so they can be safely overtaken by those
> > who are, right?
>
> It's these dickheads who think that there are fast lanes and slow
> lanes... you should be in the "slow" lane no matter what speed you're
> doing, provided that there isn't already someone there (like a
> speed-governed lorry) that you have to go round or you're at a junction
> with filter lanes.
>
> > motorway, won't go much above 55 or so, go? Correct me if I'm wrong but
> > I thought that's perfectly legal...
>
> Yes, it is. The lower limit is actually 25mph, when you need to
> either have an orange flashing light or fuck right off.
I was going to say this, but you've beaten me to it! - Now should I go look
it up in the highway code, and write down here the exact rules, as stated
therein?
Jeremy Austin
news:3ceaa95e$0$29607$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net:
> Nicholas Barton typed...
>>There are the ones who pootle along at way under the speed limit and
>>don't give you a chance to pass, though, and those who sit in the
>>middle lane of the motorway doing 65.
>
> Oh no(!) Someone's actually going at UNDER THE SPEED LIMIT ON THE
> MOTORWAY(!) Call the cops(!)
>
> 65 is only 5 under the limit so legally you can't go much faster, so
> if you're going so fast as to neeeeeeed to overtake, then you're
> probably a mental driver (hi Rutherford!) and then in my opinion you
> deserve everything you get. But the poor guy you ram at 105mph
> doesn't.
no, the point is that they're using up to many lanes, and so people start
routinely doing things like overtaking on the left, which I find annoying
and scary.
what's so special about 70mph anyway. In a collision at 70 you'll be just
as dead as in a collision at 80, you know?
>>See: Ken's plan for slow and fast pedestrian lanes on London
>>pavements.
>
> Again I want to know why people need to hurry around so much! If
> you're that late you should have left earlier.
>
> Sorry if anyone takes this personally.
>
I find walking slowly annoying and that it takes more energy than walking
at a more naturally brisk pace. For this reason I hate walking around
with my parents.
Actually, my dad walks very quickly when not with my mother due to his
gazelle-like extended legs.
Jez.
Jeremy Austin
news:Pine.SOL.4.30.020521...@curare.weedy.warwick.ac.uk:
> Not at all, but you're just wrong. It's about the basic reciprocity
> that's the basis of civilized human society.
? as far as I know, civilised human society is just the result of a process
of removing (some of) our natural animal instincts and replacing them with
something, anything, else. Reciprocity would be the basis of a /pleasant/
civilized society.
Jez.
Martin Eyles
> OK, here's an example: I'm working in Kent during the week at the
> moment. If I leave work at (just before) 3pm on a friday I don't
> generally get home until a little before 8pm. This is because the
> 15:18 train from Sandwich isn't scheduled to get to Charing Cross until
> 17:38. The 18:10 from Euston is then scheduled to get to Coventry by
> 19:26, leaving me a few minutes to nip over to platform 4 and get the
> 19:33 to Wolverhampton, which is scheduled to get to Canley for 19:35.
>
> So, to pick the most irksome section of my journey, in theory I have 32
> minutes to get from Charing Cross to Euston, which should be plenty of
> time.
>
> Except that:
<lots of reasons why it takes ages>
> So, in a worst-case scenario, I might have under fifteen minutes to get
> between Charing Cross and Euston. Add in a few minutes at either end
> fighting my way up and down stairs and escalators, and things become
> critical - just one slow-moving poltroon can cause disaster for my
> plans to get home at a vaguely reasonable time.
>
> If I miss the 18:10, then there's another one half an hour later, but
> generally, after a hard week at work, I just want to get home, have
> some dinner, put my feet up, and watch the tv.
This is why I do not wish to commute too much when I actually get a proper
job. It is not worth having a 5 hour journey from/to work, just to get paid
a bit more. It is not a good idea working too near to London, as this means
you either
a) need to be on a stupid salary to live anywhere near work
b) need to communte for ages
ME
ps - I realize that enfield seems to be OK. - I assume that is far enough
out to aford living - but I also think it is worse living north of london,
and working south of london.
Jeremy Austin
news:slrnaemlvf...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk:
> scripsit RjY ...
>>Nicholas Barton typed...
>>>See: Ken's plan for slow and fast pedestrian lanes on London
pavements.
>>
>>Again I want to know why people need to hurry around so much! If you're
>>that late you should have left earlier.
>
> OK, here's an example: I'm working in Kent during the week at the
> moment. If I leave work at (just before) 3pm on a friday I don't
> generally get home until a little before 8pm. This is because the
> 15:18 train from Sandwich isn't scheduled to get to Charing Cross until
> 17:38. The 18:10 from Euston is then scheduled to get to Coventry by
> 19:26, leaving me a few minutes to nip over to platform 4 and get the
> 19:33 to Wolverhampton, which is scheduled to get to Canley for 19:35.
Is there any way of organising society so that there isn't so much travel
involved?
You live around Canley because that's close-ish to the university and,
possibly, you like it. What is it that you do in Kent. Could it be
managed in any way without actually being in Kent?
Travel is very expensive, any way you look at it. How many better ways
are there for you to spend five hours, for example?
Jez.
cs...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
> I think I'm going to have to compile a second edition of my List - it's
> quite a therapeutic thing to do, and the first edition is rather out of
> date now.
You've got a little list?
Would any of them be missed?
g.
Danny at Chrastina dot net
> what's so special about 70mph anyway. In a collision at 70 you'll be just
> as dead as in a collision at 80, you know?
I think that the point is how long it takes for (or what are the
chances of) you slowing down to the point where you're not so dead.
--
Danny.
Look at my knees! They've gone!
Danny at Chrastina dot net
> > > But where do people like my mum, who on the rare occasions she uses the
> > > motorway, won't go much above 55 or so, go? Correct me if I'm wrong but
> > > I thought that's perfectly legal...
> >
> > Yes, it is. The lower limit is actually 25mph, when you need to
> > either have an orange flashing light or fuck right off.
>
> I was going to say this, but you've beaten me to it! - Now should I go look
> it up in the highway code, and write down here the exact rules, as stated
> therein?
http://www.roads.dtlr.gov.uk/roadsafety/hc/23.shtml#227
--
Danny.
Winds light to variable.
Nicholas Barton
> Okay fair enough. What you're saying is, everyone who's doing less
> than 70 should be in the inside lane so they can be safely overtaken
> by those who are, right? But where do people like my mum, who on the
> rare occasions she uses the motorway, won't go much above 55 or so,
> go? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that's perfectly legal, so I
> don't think you can say she shouldn't be using the motorway; I think
> just because you can go at 70 doesn't mean you should. Never mind
> above it.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the same as Danny, which is
that you should be in the leftmost lane you can, unless there's someone
going slower than you there, in which case you should move a lane to the
right until you're safely past. This is also, incidentally, what the
highway code says.
Your mum's fine going 55 on the motorway as long as she follows this rule.
Unless she has something exceptionally slow in front of her, she'll just
be in the left hand lane the whole time and people will just go round her.
No problem.
> >> Again I want to know why people need to hurry around so much! If you're
> >> that late you should have left earlier.
> >(i) That might not be an option - you just got told you had to go
> >somewhere as soon as possible with no warning, for example.
>
> All right, but then you've got a valid excuse if you're late because it
> was your stupid boss being forgetful again (or whatever)
It might not be that. It might be to make a train connection like Nick
said. It won't wait for you. It might be to get to somewhere before it
closes. It might be to go to help you dear old gran who's had a fall. You
don't alwyas have the luxury to leave in good time or to just make an
excuse when you arrive.
Nick
--
"holding a dog in slow-motion"
Nicholas Barton
> On Tue, 21 May 2002, Michael S. Glees wrote:
> > Dafydd y garreg wen schrieb:
> > >
> > > >How long ago? You didn't interrupt him, did you?
> > > The solution, as ever, lies with Douglas Adams.
> > 42???
> No, read Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.
>
> Has anyone read Salmon of Doubt, by the way?
Has anyone written Salmon of Doubt?
Phil Brown
> And tougher penalties for bumbling morons who stand around in the middle
> of a cycle path, of course.
The penalty of being struck by a speeding cyclist not being enough. I
find the people bit of the cycle path over to westwood is far too
narrow, and with more than one person in a group it's impossible not to
stray into the cycle path unless you all march silently in single file.
Why does the cycle path have to be so wide - is it anticipated that
cyclists will be especially wobbly on that particular route?
Nicholas Jackson
>Is there any way of organising society so that there isn't so much travel
>involved?
The erstwhile board of Railtrack seemed to be making some progress towards
that end, certainly.
>You live around Canley because that's close-ish to the university and,
>possibly, you like it. What is it that you do in Kent. Could it be
>managed in any way without actually being in Kent?
Short-term programming contract (current incarnation runs to the end of
July, but hopefully they'll renew it). Not worth the hassle of renting
a place in Kent, or moving there permanently.
>Travel is very expensive, any way you look at it. How many better ways
>are there for you to spend five hours, for example?
Generally it's ok, because I only commute on friday and sunday evenings,
and stay in Deal during the week. And the majority of the train journey
is ok-ish - give me plenty of time to read, or work on the PhD. It's just
that rather irritating half-hour in the middle where I have to fight my
way across central London that's less than ideal.
The cost of travel and accommodation isn't my problem - I just send the
receipts and tickets to my boss every month and everything gets
refunded.
Danny at Chrastina dot net
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0333766571/qid%3D1022068268/202-6905872-6199820
"Ten tantalising chapters of this unfinished project are padded to book
size with about 50 short Adams pieces, mostly non-fiction."
--
Danny.
And here is a picture of me saying it.
Dave Taylor
Depends if you mean the novel, or the book of random stuff from DA's hard
drive, including 10 chapters of the novel.
Hmmm. Should I buy this, or Science of Discworld 2? Or both?
Apparently the three authors of the latter will be doing a book signing
some time next week.
--
Dave Taylor
"Ah ... sweet liquor eases the pain"
[Simpsons]
Danny at Chrastina dot net
> It might not be that. It might be to make a train connection like Nick
> said. It won't wait for you. It might be to get to somewhere before it
> closes. It might be to go to help you dear old gran who's had a fall. You
> don't alwyas have the luxury to leave in good time or to just make an
> excuse when you arrive.
I don't know... running everywhere at such a speed, until they
find: there's no need.
--
Danny.
How can I, when I'm playing the part of Bludnok?
Jeremy Austin
> Your mum's fine going 55 on the motorway as long as she follows this
> rule. Unless she has something exceptionally slow in front of her,
> she'll just be in the left hand lane the whole time and people will
> just go round her. No problem.
Incidentally, 55mph tends to be the speed cars are tuned to be most
efficient at, so well done to your mum.
Jez.
Danny at Chrastina dot net
> Nicholas Barton <ni...@nickbartontakethispartout.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2002, Danny at Chrastina dot net wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 May 2002, Michael S. Glees wrote:
> >> > Dafydd y garreg wen schrieb:
> >> > > >How long ago? You didn't interrupt him, did you?
> >> > > The solution, as ever, lies with Douglas Adams.
> >> > 42???
> >> No, read Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.
> >> Has anyone read Salmon of Doubt, by the way?
> > Has anyone written Salmon of Doubt?
>
> Hmmm. Should I buy this, or Science of Discworld 2? Or both?
Read American Gods by Neil Gaiman instead (or in addition, at
least.)
--
Danny.
Buying a tie.
Jeremy Austin
> The cost of travel and accommodation isn't my problem - I just send
> the receipts and tickets to my boss every month and everything gets
> refunded.
I was thinking more of the social cost.
Anyway, there are lots of people who make ridiculous commutes every day,
driving from, say, Dorset to Coventry and back. There must be a better way.
Jez.
dev/null
Danny at Chrastina dot net wrote:
>
>> what's so special about 70mph anyway. In a collision at 70 you'll be just
>> as dead as in a collision at 80, you know?
>
> I think that the point is how long it takes for (or what are the
>chances of) you slowing down to the point where you're not so dead.
I think it's actually based on the fuel efficiency of car engines ~30
years ago. Speed limits in non-residential areas are based on economic
considerations, not out of any real concern for personal safety.
Like many stupid laws, once people become used to them they turn into
Invariable Laws Of Nature. It then becomes important to pursue these laws
rigorously, lest otherwise it become apparent to all that they serve no
purpose.
Computer flow-controlled roads would provide a very efficient mass trasit
system. However, it will be a long time before such a system can be
implemented becuase it would be political suicide to attempt to introduce
it. People are far too attached to the apparent freedom that cars give
them, however non existant it may be in reality.
Remember, KEEP LEFT.
Crazy Dave
> Nicholas Barton <ni...@nickbartontakethispartout.org> wrote:
> > Has anyone written Salmon of Doubt?
> Hmmm. Should I buy this, or Science of Discworld 2? Or both?
Same problem here.
> Apparently the three authors of the latter will be doing a book signing
> some time next week.
Please tell more!
Can't find out anything about this on the net.
http://www.co.uk.lspace.org/fandom/events/signing-tours/uk-may-02.html
--
Crazy Dave - http://www.davemansfield.com
Bomb, Kill, President, Prime minister, Anthrax. (Hello GCHQ)
Crazy Dave
> And on these principles, my brothers, we shall set up a new republic -
> Cormodia - where man can live without fear of persecution from his fellow
> man. Who is with me? Be brave, stand up and let yourself be counted among
> us.
/me stands
2
Matthew Hall
Danny at Chrastina dot net <Da...@chrastina.notreally> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Nicholas Barton wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 May 2002, Danny at Chrastina dot net wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 May 2002, Michael S. Glees wrote:
> > > > Dafydd y garreg wen schrieb:
> > > > >
> > > > > >How long ago? You didn't interrupt him, did you?
> > > > > The solution, as ever, lies with Douglas Adams.
> > > > 42???
> > > No, read Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.
> > >
> > > Has anyone read Salmon of Doubt, by the way?
> >
> > Has anyone written Salmon of Doubt?
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0333766571/qid%3D1022068268/202-69058
> 72-6199820
>
> "Ten tantalising chapters of this unfinished project are padded to book
> size with about 50 short Adams pieces, mostly non-fiction."
Rather ghoulish, if you ask me.
--
Matthew Hall - matthew at flightlessbird dot fsnet dot co dot uk
http://www.flightlessbird.fsnet.co.uk
Strength is wasted on the strong
Crazy Dave
> Do you have a minimum speed for motorways in the UK?
I thought we did, however a quick tsogl seems to reveil that we don't! France
do. And the torys propsed one in 1999.
Crazy Dave
> > > > > 42???
> > > > No, read Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.
> > > > Has anyone read Salmon of Doubt, by the way?
> > > Has anyone written Salmon of Doubt?
> > "Ten tantalising chapters of this unfinished project are padded to book
> > size with about 50 short Adams pieces, mostly non-fiction."
> Rather ghoulish, if you ask me.
imho Not really. He was writting it in order that it be published, he just hadn't
finished tweaking it.
Crazy Dave
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Nicholas Barton wrote:
> > It might not be that. It might be to make a train connection like Nick
> > said. It won't wait for you. It might be to get to somewhere before it
> > closes. It might be to go to help you dear old gran who's had a fall. You
> > don't alwyas have the luxury to leave in good time or to just make an
> > excuse when you arrive.
> I don't know... running everywhere at such a speed, until they
> find: there's no need.
and there's no fish there. ;)
Crazy Dave
> scripsit cs...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk ...
> >I sometimes try to scare people walking in the bike lane by overtaking
> >them and cutting it fine, to wake them up a bit. It rarely seems to
> >have much effect on them.
>
> I do this, too, and I've had mixed results ranging from complete
> obliviousness through to the subject's nervous relocation to the
> perfectly decent pavement they'd previously and unaccountably
> eschewed.
<snip>
I cycled in last year over the railwas bridge in canley and had to leave
the cycle path to avoid a cyclist who'd stopped to have an argument with a
bunch of skin heads who where blocking the path.
Nicholas Jackson
>Nicholas Jackson wrote:
>> And tougher penalties for bumbling morons who stand around in the middle
>> of a cycle path, of course.
>
>The penalty of being struck by a speeding cyclist not being enough.
You'd think it would be, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, the clueless
bumbler in question isn't the only person likely to be injured in such an
accident - the cyclist doesn't usually escape unharmed either.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I should be allowed to cycle
around like a lunatic without concern for other people. My ire is
directed at people who stand around chatting, on blind corners, and
then act all surprised and indignant when a panicked, yelling cyclist
appears, slamming on the brakes.
Matthew Hall
Crazy Dave <ne...@davedontlikespammansfield.com> wrote:
> Matthew Hall wrote:
>
> > > > > > 42???
> > > > > No, read Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.
> > > > > Has anyone read Salmon of Doubt, by the way?
> > > > Has anyone written Salmon of Doubt?
> > > "Ten tantalising chapters of this unfinished project are padded to book
> > > size with about 50 short Adams pieces, mostly non-fiction."
> > Rather ghoulish, if you ask me.
>
> imho Not really. He was writting it in order that it be published, he just
> hadn't
> finished tweaking it.
Given the way Adams worked, it would probably have been completely
different by the time it was actually published. And apparently it is
far less than a complete story (hence they had to pad the book out).
Is it known what Adams' wishes actually were?
Crazy Dave
> Yes, but how many people ignore:<snip>
> 2) The bike lanes next to Claycroft
Theres a cycle lane on the pavement down the old A3 [where it splits and
becomes the A3(M)] that most pedestrians stay out of, as do the cyclists.
They generally prefer cycling on a smooth road as opposed the the pavement
which goes up and down with peoples drives. This usually causes a nice
mini-trafficjam.
Nicholas Jackson
>Not that I have any great moral objection to it being published, but it
>sounds like just a cash-in to me.
Quod vide the posthumously-published works of J.R.R.Tolkien. Now I'm
quite willing to believe that the Silmarillion and the Unfinished Tales
were pretty much in a publishable state when he died, and probably the
Lays of Beleriand and the Books of Lost Tales too. But I begin to
suspect that at some point over the next few volumes it either
deteriorates to ``The following shopping list was found in my father's
effects'', or alternatively that Christopher Tolkien's started making
stuff up.
Of course, it may be that Tolkien senior actually did leave behind
enough notes to fill ten books of history and other background details
of Middle Earth.
Nicholas Barton
> But from the sound of things, he had pretty much written the whole book,
> before reading through it, binning it, and starting again. Twice. I suspect
> the tweaking was actually a major part of the Adams writing process; for
> instance, the beginning of Life, The Universe and Everything was meant to
> have been about forty pages, eventually trimmed to two lines.
>
> Not that I have any great moral objection to it being published, but it
> sounds like just a cash-in to me.
His poor publishers. I think they're entitled to a bit of a cash in after
all they've put up with..
(Plus, I think fans would want to read whatever he'd come up with anyway.)
Nicholas Barton
> In article <3CEB9A7C...@davedontlikespammansfield.com>,
>
> > imho Not really. He was writting it in order that it be published, he just
> > hadn't finished tweaking it.
>
> Given the way Adams worked, it would probably have been completely
> different by the time it was actually published. And apparently it is
> far less than a complete story (hence they had to pad the book out).
>
> Is it known what Adams' wishes actually were?
Not to die at 49, presumably.
Mr W M Dumas
On 20 May 2002, Andrew N wrote:
> <cs...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<acais8$hal$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>...
> > Nicholas Jackson <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk.remove> wrote:
> > > numbers of slow-moving people have wombled, aimlessly, into my way
> > > [1]. In those situations, I often fantasise about yelling ``Oh for the
> > > love of Christ *get out of my way*!'' and transfixing one or more of
> >
> > It's the ones who are directly in front of you, and then stop suddenly
> > to look at something (or answer a mobile phone). Also a problem in
> > supermarkets when two people start chatting, and their combined family
> > and trolleys block the entire aisle, so you either have to appear
> > anti-social and push your way through, or else take a long detour.
>
> <snip!>
>
> Or those that decide to take their office work on the train with them
> in the morning and make loud business type phone calls and so on.
>
> This is good, we're all getting the hang of the "hate the common pleb"
> way of thinking. Come up with some twisted yet amusing and original
> ways of pleb removal and I'll have my dark army in no time...
>
> And since I can't be bothered to start a new thread, see what I found
> on the adobe website:
>
> quote = """
> Download Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 for Windows (8.6MB, in English)
> Download Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 with Search and Accessibility for
> Windows (10.0MB, in English)
> Download Acrobat Reader 5.0.5 for Mac OS (0.7MB, in English)
> """
>
> How the hell do you explain the 7.9MB discrepancy?
Windows has had some great add-ons put to it which compilers automatically
incorporate blocks of code about into any program, can't remember exactly
what, plus the fact that even small programs work by invoking large chunks
of code, because of the way Windows programs work, with messaging routines
and all the rest of it - this doesn't mean using the Windows DLLs, it's a
level below that. The large chunks of code are the bits which actually
access the DLLs, and they have to be statically included.
But I wonder if it has something to do with PostScript being indigenous to
Macs? Maybe PDF breathes freer there as well because of that. Could PDF be
a version of PostScript which someone has horribly malformed?
Mr W M Dumas
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Nicholas Jackson wrote:
> scripsit cs...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk ...
> >I sometimes try to scare people walking in the bike lane by overtaking
> >them and cutting it fine, to wake them up a bit. It rarely seems to
> >have much effect on them.
>
> I do this, too, and I've had mixed results ranging from complete
> obliviousness through to the subject's nervous relocation to the
> perfectly decent pavement they'd previously and unaccountably
> eschewed.
>
> A year or so back, I was cycling, down one of those clearly-marked
> green cycle lanes in the subways in Coventry. Big crowd of people
> coming the other way, including woman with several children. I slow
> down to a very slow walking pace, patiently smiling in a ``I'd like you
> to realise you're in my way and start being a bit more considerate
> right about now'' sort of way. She glances at me and haughtily
> announces, to nobody in particular, ``There's always one, isn't
> there?''
>
> Dumbstruck, I fail to regain my powers of speech in sufficient time to
> sardonically alert her to the damn great white line, the green asphalt,
> and the bloody great pictures of bicycles at regular intervals, and
> have to content myself with mumbled obscenities after she's gone.
>
> (Not quite sure why that drifted into the present tense about halfway
> through.)
>
I was attacked on the subway leading to the city train station, in broad
daylight. A man leaned over and pushed me off against the concrete wall,
with what I believe is called a guttural snarl. I managed to stay on and
get away, turning round and looking at him in bewilderment as I did
so. His reaction this was to bawl after, "Don't look at me!", in quite an
offended tone.
Mr W M Dumas
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Danny at Chrastina dot net wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2002, Nicholas Barton wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 May 2002 cs...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk wrote:
> > > Nicholas Barton <ni...@nickbartontakethispartout.org> wrote:
> > > > Not at all, but you're just wrong. It's about the basic reciprocity that's
> > > > the basis of civilized human society.
> > >
> > > It ocurred to me today that there are a load of rules about what you
> > > should do in certain fairly common situations, and I get annoyed when
> > > people don't follow them. Only, these rules are ones that I've made
> > > up and that no one else has any reason to know. The most picky of
> > > these was the one violated by the people in front of me in the
> > > supermarket queue, which is that when your stuff is on the conveyor,
> > > you should position yourself and your trolley in line with it, so that
> > > the "Next customer here" marker is in line with the back of the
> > > trolley.
> >
> > You're already dealing with people who've thought to put the marker behind
> > their shopping (or at least pass it to you), so that's a bonus at least.
>
> You've reminded me about idiots who pay for a chocolate bar and a
> can of lemonade with a credit card, now.
That's me, though! I've joined the cashless society because I don't like
germs.
Mr W M Dumas
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Nicholas Barton wrote:
> On 22 May 2002, RjY wrote:
>
> > Okay fair enough. What you're saying is, everyone who's doing less
> > than 70 should be in the inside lane so they can be safely overtaken
> > by those who are, right? But where do people like my mum, who on the
> > rare occasions she uses the motorway, won't go much above 55 or so,
> > go? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that's perfectly legal, so I
> > don't think you can say she shouldn't be using the motorway; I think
> > just because you can go at 70 doesn't mean you should. Never mind
> > above it.
>
> No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the same as Danny, which is
> that you should be in the leftmost lane you can, unless there's someone
> going slower than you there, in which case you should move a lane to the
> right until you're safely past. This is also, incidentally, what the
> highway code says.
>
> Your mum's fine going 55 on the motorway as long as she follows this rule.
> Unless she has something exceptionally slow in front of her, she'll just
> be in the left hand lane the whole time and people will just go round her.
> No problem.
That can't be true. Person doing 30 in front of person doing 40 in front
of person doing 50. 40 person catches up, goes in middle lane. 50 person
catches up, fast lane. 120 person catches up, bang.
Matt Kimber
<ne...@davedontlikespammansfield.com> wrote:
> Nicholas Barton wrote:
>
>> And on these principles, my brothers, we shall set up a new republic -
>> Cormodia - where man can live without fear of persecution from his
>> fellow man. Who is with me? Be brave, stand up and let yourself be
>> counted among us.
>
> /me stands
Me also. People who don't pass you the "Next customer please" sign at
the supermarket or stand in the middle of a path annoy me.
But not as much as the first-years who, full of the attitude "Daddy
bought me a tutor so I could go to Warwick" attempt to sweep you off
the pavement without so much as a second glance, presumably
because going to a comprehensive school marks me as unfit to share
the path, meaning I have to fight the TWM buses for a space in the road.
3 people.
Is that enough to have a Cormodian National Anthem yet?
--
Regards,
Matt
MSN: Matt_J_Kimber at Hotmail
Nicholas Barton
You arguing for 10-lane supermotorways there, Warwick?
Jeremy Austin
>> rule. Unless she has something exceptionally slow in front of her,
>> she'll just be in the left hand lane the whole time and people will
>> just go round her. No problem.
>
> That can't be true. Person doing 30 in front of person doing 40 in
> front of person doing 50. 40 person catches up, goes in middle lane.
> 50 person catches up, fast lane. 120 person catches up, bang.
>
>
That's why it's so important to keep your eyes open when driving on the
motorway.
A variant of this occurs regularly when one lorry overtakes another, and
relatively slow vehicles enter the right hand lane.
The other option is to ride behind the slow vehicle in the middle lane
and then speed up when it has pulled back over to the left.
Jez.
Jeremy Austin
news:acg6lr$3jt$2...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk:
> Danny at Chrastina dot net <Da...@chrastina.notreally> wrote:
>> On 22 May 2002, Jeremy Austin wrote:
>>> what's so special about 70mph anyway. In a collision at 70 you'll be
>>> just as dead as in a collision at 80, you know?
>> I think that the point is how long it takes for (or what are the
>> chances of) you slowing down to the point where you're not so dead.
>
> If you 're not going as fast, there's also the possibility that you
> might have time to avoid the collision entirely.
This is all true, but far more important than your speed is how much room
you leave in front. If you're so close to the next car that you couldn't
slip a credit card between the bumpers then even if you consistently obey
all the speed limits, you're still driving like a cock.
Jez.
Nicholas Jackson
>Nicholas Jackson <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk.remove> wrote:
>> I think I'm going to have to compile a second edition of my List - it's
>> quite a therapeutic thing to do, and the first edition is rather out of
>> date now.
>
>You've got a little list?
>
>Would any of them be missed?
Not if I've got some accurate sights on my rifle, no.