Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #1127 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-03-01 19:45 +0000 |
| Last post | 2014-03-13 17:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 65 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-01 20:22 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-01 22:19 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-02 12:52 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2014-03-02 11:55 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-04 16:34 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-04 16:26 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-13 00:40 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:20 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-16 17:41 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:40 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-12 22:43 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-13 09:39 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 14:01 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-13 21:25 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 14:37 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-13 23:17 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-13 23:30 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 17:19 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-14 09:01 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone David Harmon <source@netcom.com> - 2014-03-15 20:49 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-16 17:23 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-16 22:23 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:39 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 09:57 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 13:42 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:53 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-03-14 11:03 -0500
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-14 16:13 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-03-14 13:18 -0500
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:55 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-14 13:22 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:59 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-16 15:07 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:46 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-03-16 09:17 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-16 10:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 12:03 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:45 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-17 13:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-17 14:17 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-14 11:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:41 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-16 18:03 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-14 11:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 12:16 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-14 14:16 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-03-14 13:24 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 15:02 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-14 16:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 17:00 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 09:03 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-16 10:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 18:55 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 03:28 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 21:15 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 13:41 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 03:26 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:23 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-13 11:27 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 14:09 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-13 11:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-03-13 15:39 -0600
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-03-02 19:24 +1100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 17:57 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-17 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlie102.849.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1712 |
On 2014-03-17, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2014-03-16, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: >> On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>> On 14/03/14 00:19, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: >>> >>>> I guess only the French would design a car where changing a light >>>> would be a physical impossibility. >>> >>> They are masters of that. >>> >>> 1988, Renault 5, changing the sparkplugs for a friend. well, 3 of >>> them. Nothing I had in my socket set could get to the 4th one at >>> the back. How do they do it? >> >><cough> >> >> The Morris Minor was designed so that you couldn't fill the brake >> master cylinder because the torsion bar for the driver's side front >> suspension got in the way. Apparently both the design and >> manufacturing teams scoffed at the request of the servicing folks to >> fix that so cutting a hole in the floor and putting an inspection >> plate in became a post-manufacturing job. > > Wrong. The filler was under the carpet in the driver's footwell. What > you *couldn't* do was *replace* the master cylinder without either > removing the torsion bar or leaning on it with a large wrecking bar > and hoping it didn't slip while your fingers were in the way. > > (Been There. Done that.) I think the legend is that the hole in the floor for access to the brake fluid reservoir was not part of the original production, but had to be created afterwards. I don't know if the legend was ever true, but I've never owned a brand-new Morris Minor; all those I have driven did have the hole in the floor, mostly with a large rubber bung. I'm sure that making the hole would have been incorporated in the production-line at some point in the car's history, even if it wasn't stamped out by the press shaping that particular panel. The other good legend about that car, is that the first mock-up was judged to be 'too narrow', so it was sliced length-wise and the two parts moved apart until it was 'wide enough', the gap then being covered by a flat strip. This was supposed to explain the raised flat ridge running along the middle of the bonnet. There were all sorts of compromises made in getting that car into production; lumbering it with the pre-war engine transmission and rear suspension for a start - it never did get the flat-four engine and all-round independent torsion-bar suspension Issigonis intended it to have. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | greymausg <maus@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 11:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnli5oco.37b.maus@gmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #1568 |
On 2014-03-14, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-13 23:30:21 +0000, Tim Streater said: > >> In article <atq9va-l3h.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts >> <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >> >>> 100 quid for a busted headlight - half the cars around here drive >>> around with half their lights out - no one cares. >> >> How much grace time do you get? On my C4 hatch, it is physically >> impossible for me to change a headlamp bulb. I bought a kit of blubs >> just after getting the car, but other than keeping the French cops >> happy, its a waste of time. The two times I've had a bulb go, it's been >> a visit to the dealer. And that typically has to be next day soonest. > > I guess only the French would design a car where changing a light would > be a physical impossibility. > > Sorry, couldn't resist. Thankfully I doubt anybody will be offended, > as I don't think the French government lets its citizens post on the > English Usenet (couldn't resist that either). > Neighbour had a Japanese made car, I think a Toyo[dt]a, and it needed a special, very long, tool to replace a small bulb in the front. -- maus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-16 08:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a61gva-fot.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #1568 |
On 2014-03-14, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-13 23:30:21 +0000, Tim Streater said: > >> In article <atq9va-l3h.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts >> <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >> >>> 100 quid for a busted headlight - half the cars around here drive >>> around with half their lights out - no one cares. >> >> How much grace time do you get? On my C4 hatch, it is physically >> impossible for me to change a headlamp bulb. I bought a kit of blubs >> just after getting the car, but other than keeping the French cops >> happy, its a waste of time. The two times I've had a bulb go, it's been >> a visit to the dealer. And that typically has to be next day soonest. > > I guess only the French would design a car where changing a light would > be a physical impossibility. Not too sure about that. On the Audi I had 10 years ago changing the headlight bulb was a simple affair according to the owner's handbook, until you realised the illustration was for the side without all the air ducts. On the other side (which of course was the one which failed most) you had to strip the air ducts back to get at the cover. That wasn't a job you could do when it was dark, so you had to wait until daylight came around. > Sorry, couldn't resist. Thankfully I doubt anybody will be offended, > as I don't think the French government lets its citizens post on the > English Usenet (couldn't resist that either). Dunno how that works in practice. The French have a healthy disrespect for laws they consider to be nonsense. -- Paul Sture While Twitter was down I got a new job, got married and learned how to play the bagpipes -- @flamingowurst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-16 18:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lg5hkd$a8a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1659 |
On 2014-03-16 07:41:30 +0000, Paul Sture said: > Dunno how that works in practice. The French have a healthy disrespect for > laws they consider to be nonsense. Oh I jest of course. I remember that as a 21 year old I had taken a month to go backpacking around Europe, and in the French train station in Brest there was a newly hung 'No Smoking' sign in several languages. All the locals would enter the station, stare balefully at the sign for a moment, then light up. Seems like none could resist blowing their first drag directly in the direction of the sign. The cop was smoking too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | greymausg <maus@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 11:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnli5o7t.37b.maus@gmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #1566 |
On 2014-03-13, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > On 13/03/14 21:37, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: > >> Maybe a good solution, not involving extra technology, would be to >> require police to ascertain if a cell phone was in use at the time of >> any accident, automatically assign fault to the user, and treat it like >> a case of drunken driving with the attendant classes and insurance >> hikes. In southern Oregon (Curry County) the county takes your vehicle >> and auctions it off if you drive drunk. That's a powerful incentive to >> avoid risky behavior. Can't drive drunk without a car, and after a few >> repeats you won't be able to afford to drive anyway. >> > > Exactly. I think the actual answer is to get some more police on the > road and pay for them with punitive fines for serious offences. > > Driving without insurance - should be a couple of thousand fine straight > away. Ditto yabbering on a mobile, or being over the limit (drugs or > drink). > > 100 quid for a busted headlight - half the cars around here drive around > with half their lights out - no one cares. The law is hardly enforced > and if it is, it's a silly little fine, reduced if you pay up quick. Whadda Wimp.. Equip the cop cars with inline .5 machine guns, and blow any suspects to bits... -- maus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 12:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ei8bva-d7m.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #1587 |
On 14/03/14 11:55, greymausg wrote: > Whadda Wimp.. Equip the cop cars with inline .5 machine guns, and blow > any suspects to bits... Might be a bit extreme. Last time my place saw any action that exciting, it was in 1066, 3 miles down the road (no I don't live in Hastings and the battle wasn't there either).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 14:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <86fvmkex8c.fsf@nine.des.no> |
| In reply to | #1590 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes: > Might be a bit extreme. Last time my place saw any action that > exciting, it was in 1066, 3 miles down the road (no I don't live in > Hastings and the battle wasn't there either). Stamford Bridge? DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 13:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <boge81Fg02jU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1594 |
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:16:51 +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes: >> Might be a bit extreme. Last time my place saw any action that >> exciting, it was in 1066, 3 miles down the road (no I don't live in >> Hastings and the battle wasn't there either). > > Stamford Bridge? Battle, I would imagine. -- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post *lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8ibva-3nq.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #1595 |
On 14/03/14 13:24, Bob Eager wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:16:51 +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > >> Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> writes: >>> Might be a bit extreme. Last time my place saw any action that >>> exciting, it was in 1066, 3 miles down the road (no I don't live in >>> Hastings and the battle wasn't there either). >> >> Stamford Bridge? > > Battle, I would imagine. > Indeed - unless Crowhurst win the argument that it was actually there...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | greymausg <maus@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnli6bgd.37b.maus@gmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #1590 |
On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > On 14/03/14 11:55, greymausg wrote: > >> Whadda Wimp.. Equip the cop cars with inline .5 machine guns, and blow >> any suspects to bits... > > > Might be a bit extreme. Last time my place saw any action that exciting, > it was in 1066, 3 miles down the road (no I don't live in Hastings and > the battle wasn't there either). > Stamford Bridge!.. -- maus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56pbva-6vs.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #1604 |
On 14/03/14 16:55, greymausg wrote: > On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >> On 14/03/14 11:55, greymausg wrote: >> >>> Whadda Wimp.. Equip the cop cars with inline .5 machine guns, and blow >>> any suspects to bits... >> >> >> Might be a bit extreme. Last time my place saw any action that exciting, >> it was in 1066, 3 miles down the road (no I don't live in Hastings and >> the battle wasn't there either). >> > > Stamford Bridge!.. > > No, the other one... But full marks for the more obscure answer :) Give the vikings a good kicking, then run down to deal with the Normandy Boys. Got to respect the bloke for trying!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-16 09:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mf2gva-fot.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #1590 |
On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > On 14/03/14 11:55, greymausg wrote: > >> Whadda Wimp.. Equip the cop cars with inline .5 machine guns, and blow >> any suspects to bits... > > > Might be a bit extreme. Last time my place saw any action that exciting, > it was in 1066, 3 miles down the road (no I don't live in Hastings and > the battle wasn't there either). Stamford Bridge? <http://www.britainexpress.com/History/battles/stamford-bridge.htm> We took a Norwegian visitor there once to see where it happened, but there wasn't really much to see except a field and a few trees. -- Paul Sture While Twitter was down I got a new job, got married and learned how to play the bagpipes -- @flamingowurst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | greymausg <maus@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-16 10:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnliatt4.3sf.maus@gmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #1664 |
On 2014-03-16, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: > On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >> On 14/03/14 11:55, greymausg wrote: >> >>> Whadda Wimp.. Equip the cop cars with inline .5 machine guns, and blow >>> any suspects to bits... >> >> >> Might be a bit extreme. Last time my place saw any action that exciting, >> it was in 1066, 3 miles down the road (no I don't live in Hastings and >> the battle wasn't there either). > > Stamford Bridge? > ><http://www.britainexpress.com/History/battles/stamford-bridge.htm> > > We took a Norwegian visitor there once to see where it happened, but > there wasn't really much to see except a field and a few trees. > Program on one of the BBCs last night about that. I think they concluded that the battle was just outside Hastings itself. -- maus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-16 18:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <855hva-j6c2.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #1668 |
On 2014-03-16, greymausg <maus@mail.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-16, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: >> On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>> On 14/03/14 11:55, greymausg wrote: >>> >>>> Whadda Wimp.. Equip the cop cars with inline .5 machine guns, and blow >>>> any suspects to bits... >>> >>> >>> Might be a bit extreme. Last time my place saw any action that exciting, >>> it was in 1066, 3 miles down the road (no I don't live in Hastings and >>> the battle wasn't there either). >> >> Stamford Bridge? >> >><http://www.britainexpress.com/History/battles/stamford-bridge.htm> >> >> We took a Norwegian visitor there once to see where it happened, but >> there wasn't really much to see except a field and a few trees. >> > > Program on one of the BBCs last night about that. I think they concluded > that the battle was just outside Hastings itself. Except I was talking about Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire :-) Any mention of the Battle of Hasting is incomplete without the Edgar Marriott version of events of course: <http://allpoetry.com/poem/8503265-The-Battle-Of-Hastings-by-Marriott-Edgar> -- Paul Sture And after the battle were over They found 'Arold so stately and grand, Sitting there with an eye-full of arrow On his 'orse with his 'awk in his 'and.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 03:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnli4trd.1gf.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #1560 |
In message <lft8f4$8r8$1@dont-email.me> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-13 21:25:07 +0000, Tim Watts said: >> On 13/03/14 21:01, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: >> >>> Oh, here in Oregon it already is illegal to talk or text while driving, >>> unless you use a hands-free device. Enforcement is essentially >>> nonexistent though. The only effective measure would be to mandate that >>> cell phones shut off the screen and speaker / mic if they sense that the >>> speed is above a certain level. I'm sure this would only lead to a >>> thriving black market in old cell phones though. >> >> As modern phones have GPS it's certainly viable. And a driver wanting >> to talk might as well buy a bluetooth earpiece as bother looking on >> ebay for an old phone. >> >> The awkward bit is how is the phone to know if it is being used by the >> driver or a passenger - or even on a bus or train. Sadly that part of >> the problem makes the idea a non starter. > So they wait until they are at their destination to use their phone, no > big deal. That is fucking absurd. -- Standing on the moon with nothing else to do A lovely view of heaven but I'd rather be with you
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lftvom$v4m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1574 |
On 2014-03-14 03:28:46 +0000, Lewis said: > In message <lft8f4$8r8$1@dont-email.me> > Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2014-03-13 21:25:07 +0000, Tim Watts said: > >>> On 13/03/14 21:01, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: >>> >>>> Oh, here in Oregon it already is illegal to talk or text while driving, >>>> unless you use a hands-free device. Enforcement is essentially >>>> nonexistent though. The only effective measure would be to mandate that >>>> cell phones shut off the screen and speaker / mic if they sense that the >>>> speed is above a certain level. I'm sure this would only lead to a >>>> thriving black market in old cell phones though. >>> >>> As modern phones have GPS it's certainly viable. And a driver wanting >>> to talk might as well buy a bluetooth earpiece as bother looking on >>> ebay for an old phone. >>> >>> The awkward bit is how is the phone to know if it is being used by the >>> driver or a passenger - or even on a bus or train. Sadly that part of >>> the problem makes the idea a non starter. > >> So they wait until they are at their destination to use their phone, no >> big deal. > > That is fucking absurd. What's absurd is that adults are addicted to their cell phones to the point that they would rather stare at them than watch the road. I have to wait until I land to claim my firearm when I travel by air, because guess what? Some other assholes made it into an issue. The same thing is happening with cell phones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnli61oj.7jg.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #1575 |
In message <lftvom$v4m$1@dont-email.me> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-14 03:28:46 +0000, Lewis said: >> In message <lft8f4$8r8$1@dont-email.me> >> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On 2014-03-13 21:25:07 +0000, Tim Watts said: >> >>>> On 13/03/14 21:01, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: >>>> >>>>> Oh, here in Oregon it already is illegal to talk or text while driving, >>>>> unless you use a hands-free device. Enforcement is essentially >>>>> nonexistent though. The only effective measure would be to mandate that >>>>> cell phones shut off the screen and speaker / mic if they sense that the >>>>> speed is above a certain level. I'm sure this would only lead to a >>>>> thriving black market in old cell phones though. >>>> >>>> As modern phones have GPS it's certainly viable. And a driver wanting >>>> to talk might as well buy a bluetooth earpiece as bother looking on >>>> ebay for an old phone. >>>> >>>> The awkward bit is how is the phone to know if it is being used by the >>>> driver or a passenger - or even on a bus or train. Sadly that part of >>>> the problem makes the idea a non starter. >> >>> So they wait until they are at their destination to use their phone, no >>> big deal. >> >> That is fucking absurd. > What's absurd is that adults are addicted to their cell phones to the > point that they would rather stare at them than watch the road. What the hell does that have to do with a PASSENGER? > I have to wait until I land to claim my firearm when I travel by air, > because guess what? Some other assholes made it into an issue. The > same thing is happening with cell phones. Cellphoesn are not designed with the sole intent of killing people or making conservitard's feel like they have normal sized penises either. -- Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 03:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnli4tmr.1gf.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #1556 |
In message <lft6bm$ni0$1@dont-email.me> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-13 09:39:14 +0000, Tim Streater said: >> In article <lfrght$djt$1@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex >> <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2014-03-01 20:22:54 +0000, Huge said: >>> >>>> ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. >>> >>> While this place has turned into a bit of a banana republic in recent >>> years, we're still doing OK. My hope, though, is that they pass all >>> kinds of crazy laws and make cell phones much more expensive and >>> possibly illegal to own and operate. Fully a third of the drivers on >>> the road these days are chatting, texting, or playing video games >>> instead of concentrating on driving. >> >> Simpler to make them illegal to operate while driving, as is the case >> here. > Oh, here in Oregon it already is illegal to talk or text while driving, > unless you use a hands-free device. Enforcement is essentially > nonexistent though. The only effective measure would be to mandate > that cell phones shut off the screen and speaker / mic if they sense > that the speed is above a certain level. I'm sure this would only lead > to a thriving black market in old cell phones though. And it would also piss off every passenger in the world. -- 'We'll never make it alive!' CORRECT. --Small Gods
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-16 08:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o30gva-fot.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #1552 |
On 2014-03-13, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > In article <lfrght$djt$1@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex ><bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2014-03-01 20:22:54 +0000, Huge said: >> >> > ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. >> >> While this place has turned into a bit of a banana republic in recent >> years, we're still doing OK. My hope, though, is that they pass all >> kinds of crazy laws and make cell phones much more expensive and >> possibly illegal to own and operate. Fully a third of the drivers on >> the road these days are chatting, texting, or playing video games >> instead of concentrating on driving. > > Simpler to make them illegal to operate while driving, as is the case > here. They introduced that here in Switzerland quite a while before the UK did. You still see drivers using the things regularly though. -- Paul Sture While Twitter was down I got a new job, got married and learned how to play the bagpipes -- @flamingowurst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 11:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bodj1iF60gkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1546 |
On 2014-03-13, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-01 20:22:54 +0000, Huge said: > >> ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. > > While this place has turned into a bit of a banana republic in recent > years, we're still doing OK. I know, I know. I was just winding you up - the standard American "we're freer than you are" mantra gets on my nerves. It isn't true. > My hope, though, is that they pass all > kinds of crazy laws and make cell phones much more expensive and > possibly illegal to own and operate. Fully a third of the drivers on > the road these days are chatting, texting, or playing video games > instead of concentrating on driving. One of the (many) differences I have noticed between the USA and the UK (I live in the UK, my parents have lived in the USA for ~35 years, I go there a lot) is that American drivers seem to regard driving as an activity not worthy of paying much attention to. And this was true even before cell phones became ubiquitous, but they have, as you rightly say, made the problem much worse. -- Today is Boomtime, the 72nd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3180 A non-empty Hausdorff topological space is a continuous image of the unit interval if and only if it is a compact, connected, locally connected second-countable space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web