BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Random Q & A Thread - PART 2

 
  

Page: 1 ... 1011121314(15)1617181920... 31

 
 
Olulabelle
21:20 / 16.11.04
Could someone explain the difference between starting your own website and having said thing connected to a search engine, so it's *googleable* or whatever ?

Alex,

Anyone in the world can reach your site once you've built and uploaded it if you tell them what the URL is. There are lots of sites like this - private sites which are just shared by family or whomever. However it won't appear on a search engine until you submit it to them. If you want random people to come across your site or you wish to be googleable, you need to tell the search engines that the site exists.

If you create a site but don't submit it to search engines then basically no-one will ever find it unless a/they type in the correct URL because you tell them it, b/they type in the correct URL by random chance or c/someone else who knows the site exists links to it.

Making a site and not submitting it is a bit like building a house with no roads or paths to it; unless you want to be really, really private it's a fairly pointless exercise.
 
 
iconoplast
21:49 / 16.11.04
I think search engines are a bit craftier.

Googling for my name results in a paper I wrote years ago and stored in the /www/ directory of my school account.

In fact, father down the list is said directory.

So something indexed my paper (in .doc format!) while I wasn't looking.

Mind you, it's been there for years. So there's no guarantee as to how fast the little magic indexing gnomes work. They might be indexing teamsters.
 
 
iamus
22:14 / 16.11.04
Regarding pornstar names, I knew a girl who would have been Muffin Duncan, which I thought was possibly the best I've ever heard.

I came up with the unfortunate and unwanted Flopsy King however.
 
 
William Sack
10:33 / 17.11.04
Looking for camcorder recommendations. I don't know the first thing about them, so a pointer towards whether to get analogue or digital would be a good start. My requirements are pretty straightforward, I just want to film the standard family stuff (not make home movies under my pornstar name Innes Mount Ephraim) and I don't need to take still photos or listen to MP3s, and it doesn't have to be the size of a credit card. I see that on Amazon analogues seem to be around £150-£200 and digital £250 upwards. I'm happy to go to around £300, so, can anyone suggest what I might look at? Any features or accessories that I might find useful? Whether it's worth looking for good second hand deals? Basically, as I say, I know nothing so any advice would be gratefully received.

(Sav - if you have more than one hedgehog you could try a few ends of crown green hedgehog bowls.)
 
 
Saveloy
13:44 / 17.11.04
Thanks again, fellas. If anyone else is suddenly concerned about hedgehogs, or feels they ought to be, they should look here:

Hedgehog Hibernation

I've gotta share this - the specific hedgehog in question had made a nest in an open bag of straw under the guinea-pig hutch (italics used to denote use of 'eeeee!' voice ). I know this cos I saw him walk up the garden path with a mouth full of dead leaves and bundle his way into the bag like the proud owner of a swank new pad returning from Waitrose with a carrier bag full of posh food. As you can probably imagine, I nearly exploded with glee when I saw this. He was *tiny*. I started leaving cat food out to feed him up for the winter, which he ate regularly each morning before I left for work and at night just before I turned in, but when he failed to come out for a couple of days a week later I feared the worst and had a peek.

I suspect that the poor mite is dead, as his prickles didn't respond to touch, and it hasn't really been cold enough for him to go into hibernation yet (other hogs have been spotted mooching around the garden). He's been placed in a nice safe hibernation box just in case, but I shall be giving it regular sniffs.
 
 
Olulabelle
14:52 / 17.11.04
If you have an enclosed garden (good for city dwellers), you can adopt a three legged hedgehog and it lives in your garden. These are hedgehogs who have lost legs in accidents and so therefore wouldn't survive in the wild.

Instead they live in your garden and you feed them and in return they wander around being noisy and hedgehog like.

You can read all about them on the British Hedgehog Preservation Society site, specifically enclosed gardens.

It only costs £12.50 a year (family membership) to be a member and you get a catalogue called the Hogalogue which is full of hedgehoggy things to buy. I reckon it's worth paying £12.50 a year just for the sheer amusement of having something called the Hogalogue come through your door.

And think! Three legged hedgehogs!
 
 
grant
18:29 / 17.11.04
pornstar name Innes Mount Ephraim...

1. This is not a porn star name; it's the name of a porn feature.

2. I'm not sure why you'd want an analog video recorder at all, nowadays. It's not like anyone ever made easily available 8mm or VHS-C players. DV means you can stick it straight into your computer and edit it, make DVDs, all that good stuff. Do any analog players have firewire outs? I dunno, but I doubt it.
So, that'd be one thing to look for (if you want to do that): a firewire output.
Another thing: unless you really want to use it, those big fold-out monitors are really big battery hogs. Use the viewfinder like a normal cameraman, man!
Other than that, I don't have much to offer. The onboard mics tend to suck, but you don't have much choice unless you want to wire people for sound before taking spontaneous holiday shots. DV used to be famous for "drop-off" -- in the dark, the picture would go suddenly from "kind of dim" to "pitch black," which made for an interesting dramatic effect, if staring at a pitch black screen is your idea of interesting. This might be better now, I don't know. And, just like still cameras, the more controls you have, the more expensive the unit tends to get.

So those might lead to the questions to ask your friendly neighborhood DV dealer.
 
 
William Sack
09:24 / 20.11.04
Thanks for the help Grant.
 
 
Whisky Priestess
11:56 / 20.11.04
I've only got a windowbox. Have they got any no-legged hedgehogs, do you think?
 
 
grant
18:04 / 22.11.04
Whisky: Lidocaine, betadine and a scalpel. (Lidocaine optional.)
 
 
Sekhmet
19:17 / 22.11.04
Is it possible for hedgehogs to survive out of doors in central Texas, I wonder? It seems unlikely. I want one badly though. I know people who have had them as pets, but only indoors. Anyone have a clue?

- FancyPants Fillmore

(Best pornstar name EVER! I am your mistress!)
 
 
Whisky Priestess
22:16 / 22.11.04
Can anyone swiftly furnish me with the correct French for "big laughs" or something to that effect?

Am I right in thinking it's "grandes rires" or "grandes blagues"?
 
 
Grey Area
23:08 / 22.11.04
'Laughter' has a couple of translations, I think 'hilarité' might be the best one for your purposes. La Grande Hilarité just sounds better somehow. You might want to check that grammar though. I'm really not at my best at 1 in the morning.
 
 
Jack Vincennes
10:38 / 25.11.04
I have a grammer question, which has come about as a result of reading lots of programming books. All of them use the word that when I think they should use the word which, as in :

'This is a message that the designer cannot suppress using the MESSAGE_LEVEL system variable.'

Is this wrong? Wouldn't normally ask, but I've read this kind of sentence so much in the last two months, and in completely unrelated books. I would previously have assumed it was one author's quirk, but now I'm starting to feel like I'm on crazy pills or something.

I came up with the unfortunate and unwanted Flopsy King however.

I knew there must be someone whose porn star name sounded (albeit slightly) worse than mine. Which is Frostie Setchell.
 
 
grant
14:51 / 30.11.04
There's a big debate about that/which elsewhere on this forum. The short, not-entirely accurate answer is that they're mostly interchangeable, but if you want to be a stickler, "which" would come after a comma (setting apart a clause as a modifier going into further specifics about the subject), while "that" doesn't get the comma and is more a part of the subject or distinguishing the subject. "That" is less parenthetical.

If that makes sense.

Go fetch the bicycle, which is broken.= 1 bike, happens to be broken.

Go fetch the bicycle that is broken= Possibly many bikes, one of which is broken.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:39 / 30.11.04
The short, not-entirely accurate answer is that they're mostly interchangeable

Heh heh.

*snikt*

In essence, "that" defines - it limits the denotation of the antecedent, to be exact. So:

The message board that really interested him was called Barbelith. (Barbelith is one of the set "message boards")

"Which" provides further information about the antecedent:

The message board, which was called Barbelith, was full of exciting information.

Your book appears to be talking about a message that cannot be suppressed using that system variable, in contrast to other messages that can.

'This is a message that the designer cannot suppress using the MESSAGE_LEVEL system variable.'

Personally, I'd probably go for "The designer cannot suppress this message", but that's a matter of style...
 
 
Triplets
17:20 / 30.11.04
If I had a woodchuck and it was able to throw, possibly heave, pieces of lumber how many pieces could it move about?
 
 
Grey Area
18:58 / 30.11.04
Three.
 
 
Jack Vincennes
19:16 / 30.11.04
grant, Tannhauser -my thanks. Whilst now I know all my notes use 'which' when they should use 'that', the books themselves are going to be much less jarring henceforth. As you point out Haus, they are frequently clumsily written, which probably contributed to the execptionally whiney tone of my post (for which, apologies).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:44 / 30.11.04
Ah, no worries. I didn't feel any snark in your post - it is one of the nicer distinctions, especially when "that" became fasionable instead of "which" to show archaism and vice versa to show modernity...
 
 
Jackie Susann
07:24 / 02.12.04
What's a milf?
 
 
Benny the Ball
07:45 / 02.12.04
Seriously?

It's a sexually attractive mum. stands for Mum I'd Like to F*ck
 
 
Olulabelle
20:28 / 02.12.04
MILF... I hate that phrase! It quite horribly insinuates that attractive women with children are unusual and very surprising. Since when did having a child make you instantly unattractive? And it's bollocks. It has to be, or else how do all the other siblings in families get created? And it's so bloody sexist. I mean have you ever heard women referring to father's as FILF's? And for another thing, all the women I know on this site who have children are gorgeous.

It's not that strange.

Tut.

N.B. It's highly possible that the strength of feeling I have about this may just be because no-one has ever referred to me as a MILF. It may just be sour grapes manifesting themselves as highly strung and irrational feminism.

Anyway...

...Fuck.

I've forgotten my question now.
 
 
grant
21:55 / 02.12.04
As an aside, the term MILF came into existence, as far as I know, as a joke in the witty art-house farce American Pie, but gained currency thanks largely to online amateur porn, where it gave a quick shorthand for women who were older that most "teen" performers, but younger than most "mature" performers.

As far as I know.
 
 
Olulabelle
22:37 / 02.12.04
Ahhh. Twenty-something mothers. So it is a horribly sexist term then! Mothers who are a bit younger than normal so 'bounce back' and are therefore still deemed sexy. God forbid anyone should be considered sexy once they've hit thiry.

Should I shut up now?

Am I becoming irrational about this?
 
 
Olulabelle
23:00 / 02.12.04
Rah! Remembered!

Does anyone know how to dry flowers properly, using the 'upside down in dry sand' method? I've heard this is the very best way to do it but I need more details.
 
 
Loomis
13:10 / 03.12.04
I was having a discussion with my chums in the pub last night about employment contracts, annual leave and notice periods. After a few pints I expounded my vague idealistic belief that these contracts are not legally binding and that companies have to abide by whatever the law says regardless of what is signed, but I don't realy know if this is true. I suppose a secondary part to this would relate to whether there is a law covering this.

For example, if I sign a contract saying that I agree to give two years' notice, then that would not be legally binding because a court would surely deem it unreasonable, and would thus protect me from my stupidity in having signed it. Likewise if I signed a contract agreeing to cut off my leg if my football team loses a match, you couldn't take me to court and make me cut off my leg. I also read somewhere that pre-nuptial agreements have no legal status. So clearly just signing something doesn't make it a contract if the govt. doesn't agree.

So what about notice periods of say two or three months? Are they legally binding? Workplaces seem to be forcing these on more and more people (as opposed to the old-fashioned one-month notice period), thus reducing your ability to find another job before resigning. That's fine if you earn a fortune but not if you're on an average wage.

I know that most companies probably wouldn't bother pursuing it if you told them to stuff it, but does anyone know if the contract is technically binding? Likewise with annual leave, if a company says that you can't carry over any leave days into the new year, do you have to abide by it or is there a law that overrides this?
 
 
Axolotl
13:36 / 03.12.04
As far as I recall generally completely unfair contracts are not enforcable, but this doesn't apply to employment contracts.
There are no maximum limits to a term of notice as long as the term was stated in the employment contract, you have to remember that notice applies to both sides, so if you have a 6 months term of notice, your boss must give you that notice as well.
As for not carrying over holiday as long as the company gave you the opportunity to take the holiday then it doesn't have to let you carry those days over.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
13:48 / 03.12.04
Employment contracts - here is the interesting thing, and I've said this a number of time before, certain contractual elements can override statutory employment law. Statutory employment law cannot operate in the reverse on these points. Other than that you would still have to claim and prove that a clause in a contract is either exceptional or unreasonable before you can breach that clause in the contract. Even then you may be bound to the remainder of the contract by law.

I guess the important thing is to read a contract before signing it. I know it make me a freaky wierdo but I would never sign a piece of paper carrying legal bearing on myself without understanding properly what that bearings was. On this issue I cannot understand how people cannot be bothered to make the effort.

It's like not being bothered to make the effort to go to the toilet. The results are unpleasant and often embarressing if anyone finds out. Sex can be the exception in both cases.
 
 
William Sack
14:02 / 03.12.04
certain contractual elements can override statutory employment law. Statutory employment law cannot operate in the reverse on these points.

?????

I'm not sure what you mean. There are numerous statutory provisions that you cannot contract out of (all of the anti-discrimination legislation springing to mind in a Friday afternoon sort of way) and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 *has* been held to be applicable to contracts of employment. Additionally Courts can examine the reasonableness of clauses that have the effect of restraining the ex-employees ability to earn a living.

I mean have you ever heard women referring to father's as FILF's?


That's because we like to be refered to as DILFs.

And for another thing, all the women I know on this site who have children are gorgeous.

Hey, some of the dads are not half bad either.
 
 
Jub
15:05 / 03.12.04
Where can I buy a (cheapish) ant farm in London?
 
 
grant
21:02 / 03.12.04
Jub: if you know where there's an anthill, just use a jar and a shovel, man!

ottoline: Ahhh. Twenty-something mothers.

No, neither, necessarily. The category is for women of motherhood age. My hunch is that they're mostly unattached thirty-somethings -- getting a little old for traditional porn stuff but by no means over the hill.


Should I shut up now?

Am I becoming irrational about this?


No, and only a little, but probably because I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

I think I've also heard of DILFs, but I'm not sure. It's definitely a derivative formation and not an original term meaning the same thing.
 
 
grant
21:06 / 03.12.04
Does anyone know how to dry flowers properly, using the 'upside down in dry sand' method?

Dry sand? Haven't heard of that one. The only way I know is to tie 'em up with a ribbon and hang 'em upside down off a curtain rod or something.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
11:06 / 05.12.04
Can anyone reccomend a web site where I can find a list of angels and their demonic opposites in hell?
 
 
Jub
08:33 / 06.12.04
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia there is not a direct correlation:

The distinction of good and bad angels constantly appears in the Bible, but it is instructive to note that there is no sign of any dualism or conflict between two equal principles, one good and the other evil. The conflict depicted is rather that waged on earth between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the Evil One, but the latter's inferiority is always supposed.

Not sure about other sytems though.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1011121314(15)1617181920... 31

 
  
Add Your Reply