´óÏó´«Ã½

Brief and to the point

Comments

1. At 12:05 PM on 23 Oct 2006, wrote:

   Gaah! I have to wait 'til I get home to listen to this :(( Our company filters out any streaming media. I hope it's worth it!

   CB1, but won't be...

2. At 12:05 PM on 23 Oct 2006, wrote:

   Erm :-(

   Sorry we can't bring you the programme you requested :-()

3. At 12:16 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

   Eddie, are you sure this is you? If so you evidently rival Rory Bremner in the impersonating stakes. But why did you get an award for saying "Sorry, we can't bring you the programme you requested"?... Ah...

4. At 12:48 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Eddie Mair wrote:

   Oh poo. We'll try to fix it. Stand by.

5. At 12:49 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Vyle Hernia wrote:

   To prevent network overload our company has a system which stops Real Player and other media files from entering. So I can't listen to Eddie's recording.

   And have you noticed that the previous blog (about standby buttons) said it had 9 responses but there were over a dozen? Is this one of those calculations that adds in or subtracts the date?

6. At 12:54 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Carl Goss wrote:

   Is another fire alarm due? Only one thing would have improved the classical music they played while you were in the car park... if you had been presenting it (creep creep) Next time how about remembering to take a radio mike with you, then you can introduce the music live.

   Come on someone, smash the glass at about 4.55pm!

7. At 01:01 PM on 23 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

   Hahaha! Drinks, good comment that is.

   I get the same "Sorry, we can't bring...". What a shame, I was really looking forward to a rambling question and one word answer.

   What else is going on today? All that talk about standby and wasted electricity makes we realise how difficult it is to get information about such things. According to the instruction booklet, our telly uses a watt or two in standby - I don't think this is the cause of global warming. But how much 'leccy do other things use? Battery charger for a strimmer battery, for example? And what is the relationship between flourescent tubes being left on and being turned on and off? I remember being told that it was "better to leave them on because it used more electricity to turn a tube on than it did to leave it on" - obviously this can only ever be true for some duration of "leave it on" - what is it? Or is it simply not true at all? Where can we find stuff like this so we can make proper choices?

   I've just sent of a rant to You & Yours about waste disposal/recycling. I constructed a lovely argument about how manufacturers should be taxed on packaging and as I hit "send", heard a rather limp summary of similar comments from others. The moral of this story is clearly "act fact".

8. At 01:03 PM on 23 Oct 2006, RobbieDo wrote:

   Eddie

   Your link to your "great great moment" says

   "The page may have been deleted because it is out of date"

   Did you walk when you were only 6 months or hold conversations when you were 1 year old?

   Do tell!
   

9. At 01:08 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Sara wrote:

   This blog counter is really really strange. The whole weekend it registered 0 when in fact the number should have risen to about 99. And now I only have Appy's nice posting at 12.16 but the counter says there are 3 comments.

   I will have to wait till I get home to see if Eddie rivals Rory Bremner because they are too mean here to give me a soundcard.
   It's a disgrace.

10. At 01:11 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    I love the way they attach numbers to errors. As if there's a big book somewhere, listing what they all mean.

    Whereas the truth is, the numbers are meaningless and nobody ever tracks down what caused the problem!

    Sigh. I love pooters really.

    (...and now I'm starting to talk like the locals, instead of with my charming west-Scottish brogue... time for a lunch break methinks!)

11. At 01:43 PM on 23 Oct 2006, patricia Elliot wrote:

    I'm sorry to say that what could be used as a newsworthy medium seems to be reduced to what I consider very un-newsworthy topics. After wading through several of the comments files it seems apparent that this feature is becoming full of people talking about what interests them within their sad lives. From fish fingers to parrotts.
    I also feel that the PM programme is becoming watered down and I'm sure we could do with out all this nonsence (for instance) the Big Ben feature a few days back.

    I would be curious to seee what your bosses would feel on the use of this valuable medium Mr Mair ?

    It will be interesting to see if my comments appear or are indeed moderated as most of your other postings should be!!

12. At 01:49 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    re 10

    At least one may hope that the numbers attached to errors remain static, unlike blog numbers (as Sara pointed out).

    ICL error numbers were quite helpful, because applications programmers could use the numbers and then translate the messages (e.g. ICLTXDOC REPLIES WITH A NON_ZERO RESPONSE) into something meaningful to users (e.g. The Folderfile is full).

13. At 02:03 PM on 23 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    patricia Elliot (currently at 11) - LOL!

14. At 02:28 PM on 23 Oct 2006, wrote:

    Yes I agree 100 % with you Patricia! Stiil looks like you made it to the comments section -- and ,of course, you ARE quite right, all pointless rubbish.

    Please let us all know what stimulates your grey matter and I'm sure us fellow froggers could oblige.

15. At 02:34 PM on 23 Oct 2006, wrote:

    Re: Patricia (11)

    Finally although I did indeed bring up the subject of Fish Fingers I will point out to you that I certainly don't have a sad life.

16. At 02:47 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Eddie Mair wrote:

    There's a whole new strand dedicated to this debate...

17. At 02:56 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Here we go again: 'should the PM blog be serious or not...?'

    Yawn.

18. At 03:19 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    John H (7),

    I'm guessing for "fact" read "fast", but then I like it - next time anyone asks me for advice (which, I realise, may be some time away) I'm not going to give the usual response ("Always include an SAE" or "Don't eat yellow snow"). Instead I shall respond "Act fact!"

19. At 05:27 PM on 23 Oct 2006, wrote:

    John_H (7)

    I seem to remember that it was turning on a florescent light uses the same energy as leaving it on for 20 mins.

    Don't know if that is still true.

20. At 12:42 AM on 24 Oct 2006, E. Conomie wrote:

    John H (7)

    According to the instruction booklet, our telly uses a watt or two in standby - I don't think this is the cause of global warming.

    You are, of course, quite right. Your 1 or 2 watts is / are of no great consequence in the vastness of the universe. There are, however, some 24 million households in the UK. If we assume an average of one set each, it mounts up. Add to this the video ...
    I always switch off the TV as I place the remote on top of it, so I know where to find it. The video is a different matter as it has a clock, and I can never remember how to reset it. As I don't leave the instructions on the TV I can never find them.

21. At 10:03 AM on 24 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Dear Mr Conomie, yes, I thought about that after I'd posted my little comment. This is one of those cases, I think, where if we - the masses - take all sorts of little actions that ultimately save us so little money that we wouldn't bother, we would save enough energy to make up for some outrageous wastage occurring elsewhere. But, because that waste is going to happen anyway, the only way to make up for it is to make the little savings, wherever you can. I shall herewith try to get back into turning the telly off. We only have the one, so it shouldn't be difficult. I also follow the "put the remotes on the telly" thing, so it should be really easy!

    Balther - thanks for that.

    Drinks - Of course, I did mean "fast" but am now adding "Act fact" to my list of aphorisms. And I'm giggling everytime I imagine a "generic" you straightfacedly saying it to friends and colleagues in need of helpful advice!

22. At 08:09 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Re 21, I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to use it yet, but it's on the tip of my tongue... :)

    (A "generic" me? There's food for thought...)

23. At 10:26 PM on 24 Oct 2006, wrote:

    There's no way Appy could ever be described as generic in any way :-)

24. At 10:07 AM on 25 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Fair point Fearless - I chose "generic" over "abstract". If you try, though, you can imagine an Aperitif without knowing what she looks like...

25. At 04:37 PM on 25 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Ah, but you do know what I look like (from back before someone else pretended to be me) - and I now know what you look like too, which I have already mentioned on an earlier thread...

    Apparently I am to be curbed again...