On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:23:16 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:03:28 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:41:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:05:19 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be considered
more threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the beast on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it would on
a
dog). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

Cool.

Is it just me, or do cameras mounted on someone so they stay still and
the
surroundings move seem rather odd?

Yeah, the worst of them can make you a bit sea sick.

But there isnt any feasible alternative when there is
no camera operator to keep tracking what matters.

Could have some kind of fancy gyroscopic thing or an electronic
alternative to make the camera stay still.

Trouble is that it then wouldn't be looking at
what the wearer of the camera is looking at.

That's the whole point of those action cameras, they track
what the person whose head its attached to is looking at
and that does usually produce the best result, even if it
does have the downside of making some a bit seasick.

The big professional shoulder mounted
cameras the pros use do produce a much
better result, but cost a hell of a lot more too.

It can look the same way, just reduce the wobble.

Trouble is that there isnt the room for a decent gyro stablised
system in a head mounted camera and you'd need an external
power pack with its associated cabling even if it was possible.

Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said "or an electronic alternative".

--
Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes?

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:26:19 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:01 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:29:00 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be considered
more
threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the beast on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it would on a
dog). ;-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

My ****ing great alsatian left that for dead.

He'd jump up and nip you on the cheek as a greeting.

Trouble is that he'd do that with visitors who showed up enough too and
it was very difficult to predict when he was going to decide that they
were welcome visitors and do it for the first time with a particular
visitor. With a huge great dog like that, it could give them a bit of a
fright.

If he never harms anyone, what's the problem?

No problem, its just better if the more timid
of the visitors don't get an unpleasant surprise.

Nah, it teaches them not to be afraid of dogs.

It doesn't teach them anything, those who are afraid of dogs
are even more afraid of dogs after that, because they decide
that they are even less predictable than they thought.

That's their problem. Humans are bigger and more intelligent than dogs. Being afraid of them is pathetic.

I used to have one Italian neighbour who used to borrow garden
tools. As with most dogs, mine went ****ing bananas when he
showed up, because he was obviously terrified of dogs. Wasn't
long before he wasn't even game to knock on the door and ask
to borrow anything.

Oh dear. I have no problem with any dog. Very few attack me. Those that do get my foot in their face.

--
Risk more than others think is safe.
Care more than others think is wise.
Dream more than others think is practical.
Expect more than others think is possible.
-- Claude Bissell

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:49:46 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:42:12 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

snip

What do you have against drugs?


You. ;-)

You have me? What are you insinuating?

--
Her voice had that tense grating quality, like a first-generation thermal paper fax machine that needed a band tightened.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:12:06 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:53:15 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 03:24:33 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:03:44 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:58:55 +0100, wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:40:31 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 17/04/2017 18:15, Rod Speed wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote
tim... wrote

to come back when called, not so

All the kittens with the exception of one now come when
called.

They don't even recognise their own name.
It's a real rocket scientist cat that can do that.
They actually come when you make noises that indicate food is
being
served.

I have 5 cats. If I yell one of their names, that one and that
one
only
will run out of the cat flap. Mind you, maybe it realises it's
the
one
that was misbehaving.

Yep, nothing to do with its name, everything to do with
your tone of voice and what it knows its been up to.

You can prove that trivially any time by
shouting YOU ****ER instead of its name.

Dogs are just as stupid, they don't come to their owner if they
don't
feel
like it.

Depends on the dogs. You'll never get cats to respond
to the commands of their owners like the best of the
herding dogs do. They don't ever ignore their owners.

My cats are about as obedient as the average dog.

Maybe, but not as obedient as the best of the working dogs.

In spades at long distances like the NZers do with their huntaways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntaway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDOx_O5zb2Q
That has a clear example of just one dog recognising its name.

And they don't make a noise

Corse they do when ****ing each other.

Every cat noise is a tenth of the volume of dog noises.

And they don't bark at passes by either.

And the ones that people have savaged by cutting off their
reproductive
organs don't ****.

They still make a noise when they come across another
cat they hate, or another animal they are warning off.
You can see plenty of that in the youtube someone
posted with them doing it with bears and foxes.

Yes my cats hiss at other cats, but they don't bark bark bark all
****ing
day like my neighbour's dogs.

Yeah, that's a massive downside with dogs, particularly
the ones that just bark because they are bored out of
their minds with the owner at work etc.

Mine never did that but would bark at any
visitors even if the one visitor showed up say
10 times in the one day for some reason as
they keep borrowing stuff to do some diy etc.

You seem to lend a lot of tools.

Yeah, I do. Mainly because since I build my house from scratch
on a bare block of land, I have a lot more tools than anyone
else does and don't mind lending them as long as its likely they
wont get buggered or will be replaced if they do get buggered.

Even now, because of the garage sales where the stuff is so cheap
that I always get something like a ladder or vice or still or beer
capper that is better than what I currently have, I have lots more
of almost everything than almost everyone I know.

I have something like 15 beer brewing barrel and so am the
obvious one to borrow one from if you need to borrow one.

And a ****ing loud bark too. One time I was over at
the shops around the corner which must be atleast
500m or more away and it was perfectly obviously
that a visitor had showed up at my place.

Remote burglar alarm.

Yeah, didn't work with work tho, much too far away to hear.

And no one was ever game to try stealing anything
with that ****ing great alsatian inside the house
going bananas at anyone stupid enough to try it.

Or burrrrglarrr alarrrrrum as they say in Glasgow.

And he had the cheek to report me for noisy parrots.

Yeah, they can be quite noisy. I have a long run of very
big gum trees etc down the 100' long side of the house
and we get big swarms of galahs, 50-100 birds in the
flock, show up and all camp overnight in my trees,
jabbering away to each other about the state of my jungle.

I blocked off my bedroom window with sound insulation so I can't hear the
neighbours when I'm in bed.

I only have massive great 8'x8' patio doors instead of
windows in the bedrooms and the heavy armoured
glass is surprisingly effective against most noise.

Doesn't stop it being obvious when there are 50-100 galahs
in my trees jabbering away to each other all night tho.

Not that's any problem for sleeping, I can sleep thru almost
anything. Before I built the house, I lived in a block of flats
and one thing that did wake me was some stupid bikeys quite
literally throwing full bottles of beer at the wall in the flat
below, but its got to be something like that to wake me up.

Can be interesting when you walk out of the
house and the entire crew all take off at once.

And **** all over my car.

I was thinking your head.

Nar, that's never happened.

I once had a seagull **** in some chips I'd just bought.

I did just the once have bird **** on me as it
flew past as a kid, but never any other time.

Lots of birds around currently, we had the wettest
5 months on record thru the winter here.

I mostly just notice the sillier calls some of them
have and make snide remarks about bird brains.

His complaint failed, as by law the council had to tell me they were
going to make a recording, so I put them indoors :-)

That's when he poisoned the cats and they ended up so weird }-(

I didn't have them at that point. Another neighbour has reported me to
the SSPCA for having "15 underfed cats breeding out of control". They
came round and found 5 cats well looked after. I told them to fine them
for wasting the charity's time, but apparently it happens all the time and
they don't care?

I've only ever had the one complaint to the council, when the
silly woman who I know so well that they chose to buy the bare
block of land next to me after we were all living in that block
of flats discovered a snake. Not even a poisonous one.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:44:30 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:30:02 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:57:57 +0100, Huge
wrote:

On 2017-04-18, Bod wrote:

[17 lines snipped]

Not even for Stve Punder? (Spelt incorrectly or it'll trigger my own
killfile).

Killfiling someone is akin to sticking your fingers in your ear and
reciting "ner ner de ner ner". Very childish, IMO.

Do you imagine this posturing makes you look superior in some
way?

Your whole attitude is as such.

Hey, he's not happy, so you can't really blame him.

Why is he not happy?

He's dying of cancer, his wife has given him the
bums rush and has taken half his assets, Farage
has quit UKIP and is licking Trumps arse now.

Hardly surprising he is so biter and twisted.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:23:16 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:03:28 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:41:59 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:05:19 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be
considered
more threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the beast
on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it would
on
a
dog). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

Cool.

Is it just me, or do cameras mounted on someone so they stay still
and
the
surroundings move seem rather odd?

Yeah, the worst of them can make you a bit sea sick.

But there isnt any feasible alternative when there is
no camera operator to keep tracking what matters.

Could have some kind of fancy gyroscopic thing or an electronic
alternative to make the camera stay still.

Trouble is that it then wouldn't be looking at
what the wearer of the camera is looking at.

That's the whole point of those action cameras, they track
what the person whose head its attached to is looking at
and that does usually produce the best result, even if it
does have the downside of making some a bit seasick.

The big professional shoulder mounted
cameras the pros use do produce a much
better result, but cost a hell of a lot more too.

It can look the same way, just reduce the wobble.

Trouble is that there isnt the room for a decent gyro stablised
system in a head mounted camera and you'd need an external
power pack with its associated cabling even if it was possible.

Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said "or an
electronic alternative".

There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:26:19 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:01 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:29:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be
considered
more
threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the beast
on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it would on
a
dog). ;-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

My ****ing great alsatian left that for dead.

He'd jump up and nip you on the cheek as a greeting.

Trouble is that he'd do that with visitors who showed up enough too
and
it was very difficult to predict when he was going to decide that
they
were welcome visitors and do it for the first time with a particular
visitor. With a huge great dog like that, it could give them a bit of
a
fright.

If he never harms anyone, what's the problem?

No problem, its just better if the more timid
of the visitors don't get an unpleasant surprise.

Nah, it teaches them not to be afraid of dogs.

It doesn't teach them anything, those who are afraid of dogs
are even more afraid of dogs after that, because they decide
that they are even less predictable than they thought.

That's their problem.

It is indeed, but I'd prefer to not have them **** their pants at my place.

Humans are bigger and more intelligent than dogs. Being afraid of them is
pathetic.

You'd be afraid of him when he's well away.

One party trick was to look out the kitchen window and
say to the dog 'some burglar is stealing your BONES'

He'd go absolutely ****ing bananas.

I tried to get someone to go out in the backyard in that situation,
I recon I would have stopped if I had told him to, but no one was
ever game to try it, even those who knew a lot about dogs.

Huge great dog, massive across the chest and quite
spectacular when going absolutely ****ing bananas.

I used to have one Italian neighbour who used to borrow garden tools. As
with most dogs, mine went ****ing bananas when he showed up, because he
was obviously terrified of dogs. Wasn't long before he wasn't even game
to knock on the door and ask to borrow anything.

Oh dear. I have no problem with any dog. Very few attack me.

I've only been bitten twice, once when I was still a young
kid wandering around the lion cages when the circus was
in town. I didn't even notice that there was a dog chained
up under one of the cages until it bit me on the leg.

Those that do get my foot in their face.

That would be a great way to end up ****ed over very comprehensively
indeed if you were ever actually stupid enough to try it with mine.

There's a reason the cops use them and not one crim ever
gets away with doing something like that with those.

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 15:52:37 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:47:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 18/04/2017 15:40, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 05:36:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 13:18:09 UTC+1, Chris Bartram wrote:

I'll agree that really it should have been OT, but it's pretty obvious
you'll find nothing of interest there, huh?

If he couldn't work out that 'kittens' was OT

What the left brainers often can't comprehend is that many people
don't necessarily mark their threads literally and so any links
contained within *could* still be DIY related (like the picture of a
kitten (supposedly) holding an electric drill or something equally
sad). If they didn't they would have been marked OT eh?

he should stick to discussing things with Rod, Wilkinson and the whiskied bloke.

IYHO I'm guessing?

See, sometimes even the trolls, nutters and whisky soaked come up with
something interesting or funny (unlike the Linux geeks who never do)
and that's why I don't use a kilfile (and never have).

Right brainers have the ability to choose what to read and who to
ignore and do so based on such fuzzy logic that would have a Linux
geek / left brainer frothing (more) at the mouth. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Same here, I've never even considered using a killfile.

Don't either of you get fed up of reading through 20 posts to find 1 that's interesting? It would be like watching every single TV program instead of selecting them based on title.

Do you watch every single thing on TV to find out whether it;s any good or not ?
Personally I don;t have kill files and I don't need someone to hand me a list of things I don't want to watch I don;t make a list of things I dont want to watch either. I just watch what I feel like watching I don't feel the need to have a list of things not to watch, why would I ?

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 16:10:51 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:03:30 +0100, Bod wrote:


he should stick to discussing things with Rod, Wilkinson and the
whiskied bloke.

IYHO I'm guessing?

See, sometimes even the trolls, nutters and whisky soaked come up with
something interesting or funny (unlike the Linux geeks who never do)
and that's why I don't use a kilfile (and never have).

Right brainers have the ability to choose what to read and who to
ignore and do so based on such fuzzy logic that would have a Linux
geek / left brainer frothing (more) at the mouth. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Same here, I've never even considered using a killfile.

Not even for Stve Punder? (Spelt incorrectly or it'll trigger my own
killfile).

Killfiling someone is akin to sticking your fingers in your ear and
reciting "ner ner de ner ner". Very childish, IMO.

No, it's allowing you to read the interesting posts without having to sift through the garbage. Imagine your Sky box could automatically remove soaps/whatever you're not interested in form the planner.

Yes I'd have massive caps in the TV sheduale and I'd have no idea what was being shown at those times, so I miught think I;m missing out on something, so I prefer to see what is on rather than not be able to see what is on even if I don't want to wacth it I'd like to know about it.

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 22:58:18 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news


Like opening a cat flap. You just push. There's no complicated handles
or catches, but every single bloody time they stroke it, claw at it, try
to rub it different ways....

Cant say I have ever had cat that does that.

Some cats don't like pushing with their head and prefer pulling.
Other times they maybe doing it to amuse themselves in some way.


Just walk through damn it!

Didn't some of Dave the drunk's cats do that ?

Some run through, other might stroll through.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

Do you watch every single thing on TV to find out whether it;s any good or
not ?
Personally I don;t have kill files and I don't need someone to hand me a
list of things I don't want to watch I don;t make a list of things I dont
want to watch either. I just watch what I feel like watching I don't feel
the need to have a list of things not to watch, why would I ?

Don't forget, you're typing to a grade 1 **** artist.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:36:21 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 16:10:51 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:03:30 +0100, Bod wrote:


he should stick to discussing things with Rod, Wilkinson and the
whiskied bloke.

IYHO I'm guessing?

See, sometimes even the trolls, nutters and whisky soaked come up with
something interesting or funny (unlike the Linux geeks who never do)
and that's why I don't use a kilfile (and never have).

Right brainers have the ability to choose what to read and who to
ignore and do so based on such fuzzy logic that would have a Linux
geek / left brainer frothing (more) at the mouth. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Same here, I've never even considered using a killfile.

Not even for Stve Punder? (Spelt incorrectly or it'll trigger my own
killfile).

Killfiling someone is akin to sticking your fingers in your ear and
reciting "ner ner de ner ner". Very childish, IMO.

No, it's allowing you to read the interesting posts without having to sift through the garbage. Imagine your Sky box could automatically remove soaps/whatever you're not interested in form the planner.

Yes I'd have massive caps in the TV sheduale and I'd have no idea what was being shown at those times, so I miught think I;m missing out on something, so I prefer to see what is on rather than not be able to see what is on even if I don't want to wacth it I'd like to know about it.

No, it could just place a blank coloured box, or have "unwanted" or "filtered" written on it, then you'd know it was something you've decided you're not interested in, like Songs of Praise.

--
On the topic of mobile phones:
Anything bigger than 4 inches is getting into the region where most people would have difficulty holding and using the device comfortably -- Callum Kerr, 2013.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:33:26 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 15:52:37 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:47:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 18/04/2017 15:40, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 05:36:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 13:18:09 UTC+1, Chris Bartram wrote:

I'll agree that really it should have been OT, but it's pretty obvious
you'll find nothing of interest there, huh?

If he couldn't work out that 'kittens' was OT

What the left brainers often can't comprehend is that many people
don't necessarily mark their threads literally and so any links
contained within *could* still be DIY related (like the picture of a
kitten (supposedly) holding an electric drill or something equally
sad). If they didn't they would have been marked OT eh?

he should stick to discussing things with Rod, Wilkinson and the whiskied bloke.

IYHO I'm guessing?

See, sometimes even the trolls, nutters and whisky soaked come up with
something interesting or funny (unlike the Linux geeks who never do)
and that's why I don't use a kilfile (and never have).

Right brainers have the ability to choose what to read and who to
ignore and do so based on such fuzzy logic that would have a Linux
geek / left brainer frothing (more) at the mouth. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Same here, I've never even considered using a killfile.

Don't either of you get fed up of reading through 20 posts to find 1 that's interesting? It would be like watching every single TV program instead of selecting them based on title.

Do you watch every single thing on TV to find out whether it;s any good or not ?
Personally I don;t have kill files and I don't need someone to hand me a list of things I don't want to watch I don;t make a list of things I dont want to watch either. I just watch what I feel like watching I don't feel the need to have a list of things not to watch, why would I ?

So you don't find it tedious reading through 100s of channels which are 99% ****e, just to find a few programs to watch that day?

--
Said the Duchess of Windsor at tea,
"Young man, do you fart when you pee?"
I replied with some wit
"Do you belch when you ****?"
I think that was one up to me.

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 13:12:52 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:36:21 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 16:10:51 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:03:30 +0100, Bod wrote:


he should stick to discussing things with Rod, Wilkinson and the
whiskied bloke.

IYHO I'm guessing?

See, sometimes even the trolls, nutters and whisky soaked come up with
something interesting or funny (unlike the Linux geeks who never do)
and that's why I don't use a kilfile (and never have).

Right brainers have the ability to choose what to read and who to
ignore and do so based on such fuzzy logic that would have a Linux
geek / left brainer frothing (more) at the mouth. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Same here, I've never even considered using a killfile.

Not even for Stve Punder? (Spelt incorrectly or it'll trigger my own
killfile).

Killfiling someone is akin to sticking your fingers in your ear and
reciting "ner ner de ner ner". Very childish, IMO.

No, it's allowing you to read the interesting posts without having to sift through the garbage. Imagine your Sky box could automatically remove soaps/whatever you're not interested in form the planner.

Yes I'd have massive caps in the TV sheduale and I'd have no idea what was being shown at those times, so I miught think I;m missing out on something, so I prefer to see what is on rather than not be able to see what is on even if I don't want to wacth it I'd like to know about it.

No, it could just place a blank coloured box, or have "unwanted" or "filtered" written on it, then you'd know it was something you've decided you're not interested in, like Songs of Praise.

I recorded two episodes of songs of Praise a few weeks ago.
My tastes on what I want to watch can vary in.

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 13:13:32 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:33:26 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 15:52:37 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:47:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 18/04/2017 15:40, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 05:36:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 13:18:09 UTC+1, Chris Bartram wrote:

I'll agree that really it should have been OT, but it's pretty obvious
you'll find nothing of interest there, huh?

If he couldn't work out that 'kittens' was OT

What the left brainers often can't comprehend is that many people
don't necessarily mark their threads literally and so any links
contained within *could* still be DIY related (like the picture of a
kitten (supposedly) holding an electric drill or something equally
sad). If they didn't they would have been marked OT eh?

he should stick to discussing things with Rod, Wilkinson and the whiskied bloke.

IYHO I'm guessing?

See, sometimes even the trolls, nutters and whisky soaked come up with
something interesting or funny (unlike the Linux geeks who never do)
and that's why I don't use a kilfile (and never have).

Right brainers have the ability to choose what to read and who to
ignore and do so based on such fuzzy logic that would have a Linux
geek / left brainer frothing (more) at the mouth. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Same here, I've never even considered using a killfile.

Don't either of you get fed up of reading through 20 posts to find 1 that's interesting? It would be like watching every single TV program instead of selecting them based on title.

Do you watch every single thing on TV to find out whether it;s any good or not ?
Personally I don;t have kill files and I don't need someone to hand me a list of things I don't want to watch I don;t make a list of things I dont want to watch either. I just watch what I feel like watching I don't feel the need to have a list of things not to watch, why would I ?

So you don't find it tedious reading through 100s of channels which are 99% ****e, just to find a few programs to watch that day?

Not really I know what channels are most likely to have stuff on I wish to watch so I tend to view those first and skip the others.
I''m not intrested in signing up for one of those roulete ganes you can have on the TV or mobile device but I have been know to listen to the T&Cs because I found them interesting, far more intresting than theresa may announcing an election for the 100th well 5 or 6th time I;d heard those words last night.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:41:09 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:12:06 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:53:15 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 03:24:33 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:03:44 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:58:55 +0100, wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:40:31 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 17/04/2017 18:15, Rod Speed wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote
tim... wrote

to come back when called, not so

All the kittens with the exception of one now come when
called.

They don't even recognise their own name.
It's a real rocket scientist cat that can do that.
They actually come when you make noises that indicate food is
being
served.

I have 5 cats. If I yell one of their names, that one and that
one
only
will run out of the cat flap. Mind you, maybe it realises it's
the
one
that was misbehaving.

Yep, nothing to do with its name, everything to do with
your tone of voice and what it knows its been up to.

You can prove that trivially any time by
shouting YOU ****ER instead of its name.

Dogs are just as stupid, they don't come to their owner if they
don't
feel
like it.

Depends on the dogs. You'll never get cats to respond
to the commands of their owners like the best of the
herding dogs do. They don't ever ignore their owners.

My cats are about as obedient as the average dog.

Maybe, but not as obedient as the best of the working dogs.

In spades at long distances like the NZers do with their huntaways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntaway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDOx_O5zb2Q
That has a clear example of just one dog recognising its name.

And they don't make a noise

Corse they do when ****ing each other.

Every cat noise is a tenth of the volume of dog noises.

And they don't bark at passes by either.

And the ones that people have savaged by cutting off their
reproductive
organs don't ****.

They still make a noise when they come across another
cat they hate, or another animal they are warning off.
You can see plenty of that in the youtube someone
posted with them doing it with bears and foxes.

Yes my cats hiss at other cats, but they don't bark bark bark all
****ing
day like my neighbour's dogs.

Yeah, that's a massive downside with dogs, particularly
the ones that just bark because they are bored out of
their minds with the owner at work etc.

Mine never did that but would bark at any
visitors even if the one visitor showed up say
10 times in the one day for some reason as
they keep borrowing stuff to do some diy etc.

You seem to lend a lot of tools.

Yeah, I do. Mainly because since I build my house from scratch
on a bare block of land, I have a lot more tools than anyone
else does and don't mind lending them as long as its likely they
wont get buggered or will be replaced if they do get buggered.

Even now, because of the garage sales where the stuff is so cheap
that I always get something like a ladder or vice or still or beer
capper that is better than what I currently have, I have lots more
of almost everything than almost everyone I know.

I have something like 15 beer brewing barrel and so am the
obvious one to borrow one from if you need to borrow one.

You must be popular with your neighbours. I have a tradesman 3 doors along I can borrow stuff from.

And a ****ing loud bark too. One time I was over at
the shops around the corner which must be atleast
500m or more away and it was perfectly obviously
that a visitor had showed up at my place.

Remote burglar alarm.

Yeah, didn't work with work tho, much too far away to hear.

And no one was ever game to try stealing anything
with that ****ing great alsatian inside the house
going bananas at anyone stupid enough to try it.

Why are people scared of dogs? Pretty easy to kill/stun/scare off a dog using a heavy implement.

Or burrrrglarrr alarrrrrum as they say in Glasgow.

And he had the cheek to report me for noisy parrots.

Yeah, they can be quite noisy. I have a long run of very
big gum trees etc down the 100' long side of the house
and we get big swarms of galahs, 50-100 birds in the
flock, show up and all camp overnight in my trees,
jabbering away to each other about the state of my jungle.

I blocked off my bedroom window with sound insulation so I can't hear the
neighbours when I'm in bed.

I only have massive great 8'x8' patio doors instead of
windows in the bedrooms and the heavy armoured
glass is surprisingly effective against most noise.

Armoured glass?

Doesn't stop it being obvious when there are 50-100 galahs
in my trees jabbering away to each other all night tho.

Not that's any problem for sleeping, I can sleep thru almost
anything.

Unfortunately I cannot.

Before I built the house, I lived in a block of flats
and one thing that did wake me was some stupid bikeys quite
literally throwing full bottles of beer at the wall in the flat
below, but its got to be something like that to wake me up.

I used to have a German neighbour with several kilowatts of music which he played until 4am at parties. I waited till he went to sleep then put equally powerful speakers against the dividing wall. He moved out after only 1 year.

Can be interesting when you walk out of the
house and the entire crew all take off at once.

And **** all over my car.

I was thinking your head.

Nar, that's never happened.

I once had a seagull **** in some chips I'd just bought.

I did just the once have bird **** on me as it
flew past as a kid, but never any other time.

Lots of birds around currently, we had the wettest
5 months on record thru the winter here.

Been very dry up here. England is considering hosepipe bans. I ignore those, they're pointless, 96% of water usage is industrial.

I mostly just notice the sillier calls some of them
have and make snide remarks about bird brains.

What is a "silly" bird call?

His complaint failed, as by law the council had to tell me they were
going to make a recording, so I put them indoors :-)

That's when he poisoned the cats and they ended up so weird }-(

I didn't have them at that point. Another neighbour has reported me to
the SSPCA for having "15 underfed cats breeding out of control". They
came round and found 5 cats well looked after. I told them to fine them
for wasting the charity's time, but apparently it happens all the time and
they don't care?

I've only ever had the one complaint to the council, when the
silly woman who I know so well that they chose to buy the bare
block of land next to me after we were all living in that block
of flats discovered a snake. Not even a poisonous one.

They complained about you because of a snake?! Did they think it was your pet? Did they not realise they are living wild in Australia?

--
Joey's teacher sent a note home to his Mother saying, "Joey seems to be a very bright boy, but spends too much of his time thinking about sex and girls."
The Mother wrote back the next day, "If you find a solution, please advise. I have the same problem with his Father."

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:02:58 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:23:16 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:03:28 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:41:59 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:05:19 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be
considered
more threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the beast
on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it would
on
a
dog). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

Cool.

Is it just me, or do cameras mounted on someone so they stay still
and
the
surroundings move seem rather odd?

Yeah, the worst of them can make you a bit sea sick.

But there isnt any feasible alternative when there is
no camera operator to keep tracking what matters.

Could have some kind of fancy gyroscopic thing or an electronic
alternative to make the camera stay still.

Trouble is that it then wouldn't be looking at
what the wearer of the camera is looking at.

That's the whole point of those action cameras, they track
what the person whose head its attached to is looking at
and that does usually produce the best result, even if it
does have the downside of making some a bit seasick.

The big professional shoulder mounted
cameras the pros use do produce a much
better result, but cost a hell of a lot more too.

It can look the same way, just reduce the wobble.

Trouble is that there isnt the room for a decent gyro stablised
system in a head mounted camera and you'd need an external
power pack with its associated cabling even if it was possible.

Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said "or an
electronic alternative".

There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.

Sony invented it decades ago.

--
When I was in the pub I heard a couple of plonkas saying that they wouldn't feel safe on an aircraft if they knew the pilot was a woman. What a pair of sexists. I mean, it's not as if she'd have to reverse the bloody thing!

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:17:39 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:26:19 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:01 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:29:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be
considered
more
threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the beast
on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it would on
a
dog). ;-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

My ****ing great alsatian left that for dead.

He'd jump up and nip you on the cheek as a greeting.

Trouble is that he'd do that with visitors who showed up enough too
and
it was very difficult to predict when he was going to decide that
they
were welcome visitors and do it for the first time with a particular
visitor. With a huge great dog like that, it could give them a bit of
a
fright.

If he never harms anyone, what's the problem?

No problem, its just better if the more timid
of the visitors don't get an unpleasant surprise.

Nah, it teaches them not to be afraid of dogs.

It doesn't teach them anything, those who are afraid of dogs
are even more afraid of dogs after that, because they decide
that they are even less predictable than they thought.

That's their problem.

It is indeed, but I'd prefer to not have them **** their pants at my place.

Humans are bigger and more intelligent than dogs. Being afraid of them is
pathetic.

You'd be afraid of him when he's well away.

One party trick was to look out the kitchen window and
say to the dog 'some burglar is stealing your BONES'

He'd go absolutely ****ing bananas.

I tried to get someone to go out in the backyard in that situation,
I recon I would have stopped if I had told him to, but no one was
ever game to try it, even those who knew a lot about dogs.

Huge great dog, massive across the chest and quite
spectacular when going absolutely ****ing bananas.

I used to have one Italian neighbour who used to borrow garden tools. As
with most dogs, mine went ****ing bananas when he showed up, because he
was obviously terrified of dogs. Wasn't long before he wasn't even game
to knock on the door and ask to borrow anything.

Oh dear. I have no problem with any dog. Very few attack me.

I've only been bitten twice, once when I was still a young
kid wandering around the lion cages when the circus was
in town. I didn't even notice that there was a dog chained
up under one of the cages until it bit me on the leg.

Those that do get my foot in their face.

That would be a great way to end up ****ed over very comprehensively
indeed if you were ever actually stupid enough to try it with mine.

There's a reason the cops use them and not one crim ever
gets away with doing something like that with those.

We can use tools, they can't.

--
I was on a train this morning, in the loo, when a voice called out "Can I see your ticket please?"
"Not right now," I replied, "I'm having a ****."
"I don't believe you," said the voice, "slide it under the door."
"No problem," I said. "The yellow bits are sweetcorn!"

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:23:07 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 13:12:52 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:36:21 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 16:10:51 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:03:30 +0100, Bod wrote:


he should stick to discussing things with Rod, Wilkinson and the
whiskied bloke.

IYHO I'm guessing?

See, sometimes even the trolls, nutters and whisky soaked come up with
something interesting or funny (unlike the Linux geeks who never do)
and that's why I don't use a kilfile (and never have).

Right brainers have the ability to choose what to read and who to
ignore and do so based on such fuzzy logic that would have a Linux
geek / left brainer frothing (more) at the mouth. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Same here, I've never even considered using a killfile.

Not even for Stve Punder? (Spelt incorrectly or it'll trigger my own
killfile).

Killfiling someone is akin to sticking your fingers in your ear and
reciting "ner ner de ner ner". Very childish, IMO.

No, it's allowing you to read the interesting posts without having to sift through the garbage. Imagine your Sky box could automatically remove soaps/whatever you're not interested in form the planner.

Yes I'd have massive caps in the TV sheduale and I'd have no idea what was being shown at those times, so I miught think I;m missing out on something, so I prefer to see what is on rather than not be able to see what is on even if I don't want to wacth it I'd like to know about it.

No, it could just place a blank coloured box, or have "unwanted" or "filtered" written on it, then you'd know it was something you've decided you're not interested in, like Songs of Praise.

I recorded two episodes of songs of Praise a few weeks ago.
My tastes on what I want to watch can vary in.

How odd. Most people hate certain types of program and always have.

--
Working with Sophia Loren is like being bombarded by watermelons -- Alan Ladd

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:58:07 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:03:44 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:58:55 +0100, wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:40:31 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 17/04/2017 18:15, Rod Speed wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote
tim... wrote

to come back when called, not so

All the kittens with the exception of one now come when called.

They don't even recognise their own name.
It's a real rocket scientist cat that can do that.
They actually come when you make noises that indicate food is being
served.

I have 5 cats. If I yell one of their names, that one and that one
only
will run out of the cat flap. Mind you, maybe it realises it's the
one
that was misbehaving.

Yep, nothing to do with its name, everything to do with
your tone of voice and what it knows its been up to.

You can prove that trivially any time by
shouting YOU ****ER instead of its name.

Dogs are just as stupid, they don't come to their owner if they don't
feel
like it.

Depends on the dogs. You'll never get cats to respond
to the commands of their owners like the best of the
herding dogs do. They don't ever ignore their owners.

One thing cats are no good at is learning simple physical activities.

Dunno, that russian circus fella clearly knows how to do that.

Not clear how long it took him to get them to do that stuff tho.

Like opening a cat flap. You just push. There's no complicated handles
or catches, but every single bloody time they stroke it, claw at it, try
to rub it different ways....

Cant say I have ever had cat that does that.

50% of cats I've had do that.

The other stupid thing they do is two try to go through at once, which usually results in the destruction of the catflap.

Just walk through damn it!

Didn't some of Dave the drunk's cats do that ?

Maybe they stole some of his whisky.

But it's a lot easier to train a cat or kitten to use a litter tray than a
dog.

Presumably because they are a lot more fussy than dogs.

What revolts me is my cat eats her kittens ****.

--
A bird in the hand is always greener than the grass under the other guy's bushes.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:41:09 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:12:06 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:53:15 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 03:24:33 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:03:44 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:58:55 +0100, wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:40:31 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 17/04/2017 18:15, Rod Speed wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote
tim... wrote

to come back when called, not so

All the kittens with the exception of one now come when
called.

They don't even recognise their own name.
It's a real rocket scientist cat that can do that.
They actually come when you make noises that indicate food
is
being
served.

I have 5 cats. If I yell one of their names, that one and
that
one
only
will run out of the cat flap. Mind you, maybe it realises
it's
the
one
that was misbehaving.

Yep, nothing to do with its name, everything to do with
your tone of voice and what it knows its been up to.

You can prove that trivially any time by
shouting YOU ****ER instead of its name.

Dogs are just as stupid, they don't come to their owner if they
don't
feel
like it.

Depends on the dogs. You'll never get cats to respond
to the commands of their owners like the best of the
herding dogs do. They don't ever ignore their owners.

My cats are about as obedient as the average dog.

Maybe, but not as obedient as the best of the working dogs.

In spades at long distances like the NZers do with their huntaways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntaway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDOx_O5zb2Q
That has a clear example of just one dog recognising its name.

And they don't make a noise

Corse they do when ****ing each other.

Every cat noise is a tenth of the volume of dog noises.

And they don't bark at passes by either.

And the ones that people have savaged by cutting off their
reproductive
organs don't ****.

They still make a noise when they come across another
cat they hate, or another animal they are warning off.
You can see plenty of that in the youtube someone
posted with them doing it with bears and foxes.

Yes my cats hiss at other cats, but they don't bark bark bark all
****ing
day like my neighbour's dogs.

Yeah, that's a massive downside with dogs, particularly
the ones that just bark because they are bored out of
their minds with the owner at work etc.

Mine never did that but would bark at any
visitors even if the one visitor showed up say
10 times in the one day for some reason as
they keep borrowing stuff to do some diy etc.

You seem to lend a lot of tools.

Yeah, I do. Mainly because since I build my house from scratch
on a bare block of land, I have a lot more tools than anyone
else does and don't mind lending them as long as its likely they
wont get buggered or will be replaced if they do get buggered.

Even now, because of the garage sales where the stuff is so cheap
that I always get something like a ladder or vice or still or beer
capper that is better than what I currently have, I have lots more
of almost everything than almost everyone I know.

I have something like 15 beer brewing barrel and so am the
obvious one to borrow one from if you need to borrow one.

You must be popular with your neighbours.

Yeah, I know them all and lend most of them quite a bit of stuff.
Respond first when their alarm goes off too, although another
of the neighbours is usually there pretty soon after I am.

I have a tradesman 3 doors along I can borrow stuff from.

I have a lot more stuff than any of my neighbours do. The other
one who built his house from scratch on a bare block of land has
moved to the countrys capital where one of his kids lives now.
They used to be off there often to look after the grandkids and
decided that they might as well move there permanently.

One of my other neighbours, the one who chose their bare
block of land next to mine because we were all living in the
block of flats when we decided to have our own houses,
claims that they moved out because they got sick of the
drunk that was living next door. The drunk has since died
just after they moved to Canberra.

And a ****ing loud bark too. One time I was over at
the shops around the corner which must be atleast
500m or more away and it was perfectly obviously
that a visitor had showed up at my place.

Remote burglar alarm.

Yeah, didn't work with work tho, much too far away to hear.

And no one was ever game to try stealing anything
with that ****ing great alsatian inside the house
going bananas at anyone stupid enough to try it.

Why are people scared of dogs?

Why are people scared of mice, spiders, snakes etc ?

It's the way we evolved presumably.

Same reason most cats are scared of cucumbers etc.

Pretty easy to kill/stun/scare off a dog using a heavy implement.

You wont do that with the big dogs.

Or burrrrglarrr alarrrrrum as they say in Glasgow.

And he had the cheek to report me for noisy parrots.

Yeah, they can be quite noisy. I have a long run of very
big gum trees etc down the 100' long side of the house
and we get big swarms of galahs, 50-100 birds in the
flock, show up and all camp overnight in my trees,
jabbering away to each other about the state of my jungle.

I blocked off my bedroom window with sound insulation so I can't hear
the
neighbours when I'm in bed.

I only have massive great 8'x8' patio doors instead of
windows in the bedrooms and the heavy armoured
glass is surprisingly effective against most noise.

Armoured glass?

Toughened glass so even if you try walking thru it by accident,
it doesn't break. Heat treated, not laminated like car windscreens.

Even a sledge hammer wont break it, but a sharp stone can do.

Doesn't stop it being obvious when there are 50-100 galahs
in my trees jabbering away to each other all night tho.

Not that's any problem for sleeping, I can sleep thru almost
anything.

Unfortunately I cannot.

Before I built the house, I lived in a block of flats
and one thing that did wake me was some stupid bikeys quite
literally throwing full bottles of beer at the brick wall in the flat
below, but its got to be something like that to wake me up.

I used to have a German neighbour with several kilowatts of music which he
played until 4am at parties.

I can sleep thru that fine.

I waited till he went to sleep then put equally powerful speakers against
the dividing wall. He moved out after only 1 year.

Can be interesting when you walk out of the
house and the entire crew all take off at once.

And **** all over my car.

I was thinking your head.

Nar, that's never happened.

I once had a seagull **** in some chips I'd just bought.

I did just the once have bird **** on me as it
flew past as a kid, but never any other time.

Lots of birds around currently, we had the wettest
5 months on record thru the winter here.

Been very dry up here. England is considering hosepipe bans. I ignore
those, they're pointless, 96% of water usage is industrial.

I mostly just notice the sillier calls some of them
have and make snide remarks about bird brains.

What is a "silly" bird call?

I'll record one. Remarkably silly.

His complaint failed, as by law the council had to tell me they were
going to make a recording, so I put them indoors :-)

That's when he poisoned the cats and they ended up so weird }-(

I didn't have them at that point. Another neighbour has reported me to
the SSPCA for having "15 underfed cats breeding out of control". They
came round and found 5 cats well looked after. I told them to fine them
for wasting the charity's time, but apparently it happens all the time
and
they don't care?

I've only ever had the one complaint to the council, when the
silly woman who I know so well that they chose to buy the bare
block of land next to me after we were all living in that block
of flats discovered a snake. Not even a poisonous one.

They complained about you because of a snake?!

Yep, I don't bother to mow my lawns and it's a bit of a jungle.

Did they think it was your pet?

Nope.

Did they not realise they are living wild in Australia?

It was just her, he's not that stupid.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:02:58 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:23:16 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:03:28 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:41:59 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:05:19 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be
considered
more threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the
beast
on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals
was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as
I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it would
on
a
dog). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

Cool.

Is it just me, or do cameras mounted on someone so they stay still
and
the
surroundings move seem rather odd?

Yeah, the worst of them can make you a bit sea sick.

But there isnt any feasible alternative when there is
no camera operator to keep tracking what matters.

Could have some kind of fancy gyroscopic thing or an electronic
alternative to make the camera stay still.

Trouble is that it then wouldn't be looking at
what the wearer of the camera is looking at.

That's the whole point of those action cameras, they track
what the person whose head its attached to is looking at
and that does usually produce the best result, even if it
does have the downside of making some a bit seasick.

The big professional shoulder mounted
cameras the pros use do produce a much
better result, but cost a hell of a lot more too.

It can look the same way, just reduce the wobble.

Trouble is that there isnt the room for a decent gyro stablised
system in a head mounted camera and you'd need an external
power pack with its associated cabling even if it was possible.

Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said "or an
electronic alternative".

There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.

Sony invented it decades ago.

But even theirs don't have it, so its more complicated than that.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:17:39 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:26:19 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:01 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:29:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be
considered
more
threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the beast
on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals
was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as
I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it would
on
a
dog). ;-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

My ****ing great alsatian left that for dead.

He'd jump up and nip you on the cheek as a greeting.

Trouble is that he'd do that with visitors who showed up enough too
and
it was very difficult to predict when he was going to decide that
they
were welcome visitors and do it for the first time with a
particular
visitor. With a huge great dog like that, it could give them a bit
of
a
fright.

If he never harms anyone, what's the problem?

No problem, its just better if the more timid
of the visitors don't get an unpleasant surprise.

Nah, it teaches them not to be afraid of dogs.

It doesn't teach them anything, those who are afraid of dogs
are even more afraid of dogs after that, because they decide
that they are even less predictable than they thought.

That's their problem.

It is indeed, but I'd prefer to not have them **** their pants at my
place.

Humans are bigger and more intelligent than dogs. Being afraid of them
is
pathetic.

You'd be afraid of him when he's well away.

One party trick was to look out the kitchen window and
say to the dog 'some burglar is stealing your BONES'

He'd go absolutely ****ing bananas.

I tried to get someone to go out in the backyard in that situation,
I recon I would have stopped if I had told him to, but no one was
ever game to try it, even those who knew a lot about dogs.

Huge great dog, massive across the chest and quite
spectacular when going absolutely ****ing bananas.

I used to have one Italian neighbour who used to borrow garden tools.
As
with most dogs, mine went ****ing bananas when he showed up, because he
was obviously terrified of dogs. Wasn't long before he wasn't even game
to knock on the door and ask to borrow anything.

Oh dear. I have no problem with any dog. Very few attack me.

I've only been bitten twice, once when I was still a young
kid wandering around the lion cages when the circus was
in town. I didn't even notice that there was a dog chained
up under one of the cages until it bit me on the leg.

Those that do get my foot in their face.

That would be a great way to end up ****ed over very comprehensively
indeed if you were ever actually stupid enough to try it with mine.

There's a reason the cops use them and not one crim ever
gets away with doing something like that with those.

We can use tools, they can't.

Have fun finding a tool other than a gun that works I that situation.

And it would need to be a shortened shotty too.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:03:02 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:02:58 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:23:16 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:03:28 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:41:59 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:05:19 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be
considered
more threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the
beast
on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals
was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as
I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it would
on
a
dog). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

Cool.

Is it just me, or do cameras mounted on someone so they stay still
and
the
surroundings move seem rather odd?

Yeah, the worst of them can make you a bit sea sick.

But there isnt any feasible alternative when there is
no camera operator to keep tracking what matters.

Could have some kind of fancy gyroscopic thing or an electronic
alternative to make the camera stay still.

Trouble is that it then wouldn't be looking at
what the wearer of the camera is looking at.

That's the whole point of those action cameras, they track
what the person whose head its attached to is looking at
and that does usually produce the best result, even if it
does have the downside of making some a bit seasick.

The big professional shoulder mounted
cameras the pros use do produce a much
better result, but cost a hell of a lot more too.

It can look the same way, just reduce the wobble.

Trouble is that there isnt the room for a decent gyro stablised
system in a head mounted camera and you'd need an external
power pack with its associated cabling even if it was possible.

Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said "or an
electronic alternative".

There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.

Sony invented it decades ago.

But even theirs don't have it, so its more complicated than that.

It's on every single video camera nowadays, so why not on selfie versions? It's called something like "steadyshot". Maybe it gets confused as most of the image is jumpy, yet the face in the centre is not. You'd think they could easily adapt the programming.

--
An actor works all his life to gain recognition.
He makes guest appearances, spends a lot for publicity people and agents etc.
Then, when he finally becomes well known, he complains he cannot go out in public anymore.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:58:07 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:03:44 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:58:55 +0100, wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:40:31 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 17/04/2017 18:15, Rod Speed wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote
tim... wrote

to come back when called, not so

All the kittens with the exception of one now come when called.

They don't even recognise their own name.
It's a real rocket scientist cat that can do that.
They actually come when you make noises that indicate food is
being
served.

I have 5 cats. If I yell one of their names, that one and that one
only
will run out of the cat flap. Mind you, maybe it realises it's the
one
that was misbehaving.

Yep, nothing to do with its name, everything to do with
your tone of voice and what it knows its been up to.

You can prove that trivially any time by
shouting YOU ****ER instead of its name.

Dogs are just as stupid, they don't come to their owner if they don't
feel
like it.

Depends on the dogs. You'll never get cats to respond
to the commands of their owners like the best of the
herding dogs do. They don't ever ignore their owners.

One thing cats are no good at is learning simple physical activities.

Dunno, that russian circus fella clearly knows how to do that.

Not clear how long it took him to get them to do that stuff tho.

Like opening a cat flap. You just push. There's no complicated handles
or catches, but every single bloody time they stroke it, claw at it, try
to rub it different ways....

Cant say I have ever had cat that does that.

50% of cats I've had do that.

Presumably those in your area are ****ed in the head that way.

The other stupid thing they do is two try to go through at once, which
usually results in the destruction of the catflap.

Wouldn't happen with one I made.

Just walk through damn it!

Didn't some of Dave the drunk's cats do that ?

Maybe they stole some of his whisky.

Why would that make them walk straight thru ?

Surely they'd be legless like he is ?

But it's a lot easier to train a cat or kitten to use a litter tray than
a dog.

Presumably because they are a lot more fussy than dogs.

What revolts me is my cat eats her kittens ****.

Plenty of dogs eat their own ****.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:03:02 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:02:58 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:23:16 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:03:28 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:41:59 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:05:19 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be
considered
more threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the
beast
on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals
was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as
I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it
would
on
a
dog). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

Cool.

Is it just me, or do cameras mounted on someone so they stay
still
and
the
surroundings move seem rather odd?

Yeah, the worst of them can make you a bit sea sick.

But there isnt any feasible alternative when there is
no camera operator to keep tracking what matters.

Could have some kind of fancy gyroscopic thing or an electronic
alternative to make the camera stay still.

Trouble is that it then wouldn't be looking at
what the wearer of the camera is looking at.

That's the whole point of those action cameras, they track
what the person whose head its attached to is looking at
and that does usually produce the best result, even if it
does have the downside of making some a bit seasick.

The big professional shoulder mounted
cameras the pros use do produce a much
better result, but cost a hell of a lot more too.

It can look the same way, just reduce the wobble.

Trouble is that there isnt the room for a decent gyro stablised
system in a head mounted camera and you'd need an external
power pack with its associated cabling even if it was possible.

Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said "or
an
electronic alternative".

There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.

Sony invented it decades ago.

But even theirs don't have it, so its more complicated than that.

It's on every single video camera nowadays,

Like hell it is in the sense that you get as good a result as with
the massive great shoulder mounted pro cameras the pros use.

so why not on selfie versions?

Because it doesn't work when the camera moves around that much.

It's called something like "steadyshot".

Sure, its useful for minor steadying, but that's all it can do.

Maybe it gets confused as most of the image is jumpy, yet the face in the
centre is not.

Its more that the head mounted cameras move the background
around a hell of a lot more and the stuff that is being recorded
deliberately doesn't move around anything like as much.

You'd think they could easily adapt the programming.

Not even possible. Easy enough when the entire image
is moving due to the camera moving, but impossible
when its just the background moving and not the stuff
in the foreground. There is no way that any digital
real time processing can do anything about the wild
movements in the background that is the problem.

Its only a full gyro action in the camera that works
and that isnt possible with head mounted camera.

Like I said, if it was possible, you could buy it.

It isnt, so you can't.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:36:04 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:03:02 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:02:58 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:23:16 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:03:28 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:41:59 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:05:19 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be
considered
more threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the
beast
on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals
was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as
I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it
would
on
a
dog). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

Cool.

Is it just me, or do cameras mounted on someone so they stay
still
and
the
surroundings move seem rather odd?

Yeah, the worst of them can make you a bit sea sick.

But there isnt any feasible alternative when there is
no camera operator to keep tracking what matters.

Could have some kind of fancy gyroscopic thing or an electronic
alternative to make the camera stay still.

Trouble is that it then wouldn't be looking at
what the wearer of the camera is looking at.

That's the whole point of those action cameras, they track
what the person whose head its attached to is looking at
and that does usually produce the best result, even if it
does have the downside of making some a bit seasick.

The big professional shoulder mounted
cameras the pros use do produce a much
better result, but cost a hell of a lot more too.

It can look the same way, just reduce the wobble.

Trouble is that there isnt the room for a decent gyro stablised
system in a head mounted camera and you'd need an external
power pack with its associated cabling even if it was possible.

Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said "or
an
electronic alternative".

There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.

Sony invented it decades ago.

But even theirs don't have it, so its more complicated than that.

It's on every single video camera nowadays,

Like hell it is in the sense that you get as good a result as with
the massive great shoulder mounted pro cameras the pros use.

But better than the wobbly selfie shots we see.

so why not on selfie versions?

Because it doesn't work when the camera moves around that much.

I've seen it work well on a roller coaster etc.

It's called something like "steadyshot".

Sure, its useful for minor steadying, but that's all it can do.

Maybe it gets confused as most of the image is jumpy, yet the face in the
centre is not.

Its more that the head mounted cameras move the background
around a hell of a lot more and the stuff that is being recorded
deliberately doesn't move around anything like as much.

I suppose it's slower movement rather than jolting.

You'd think they could easily adapt the programming.

Not even possible. Easy enough when the entire image
is moving due to the camera moving, but impossible
when its just the background moving and not the stuff
in the foreground. There is no way that any digital
real time processing can do anything about the wild
movements in the background that is the problem.

Easy enough for it to analyse everything around the edges and move the frame to suit.

--
An English woman who has been blind for 26 years got her sight back after suffering a heart attack.
Unfortunately, after she was able to see her doctors bill she had several more heart attacks.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:36:04 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:03:02 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:02:58 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:23:16 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:03:28 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:41:59 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:05:19 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT),

wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be
considered
more threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the
beast
on
a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous
animals
was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims
(as
I'm
not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it
would
on
a
dog). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

Cool.

Is it just me, or do cameras mounted on someone so they stay
still
and
the
surroundings move seem rather odd?

Yeah, the worst of them can make you a bit sea sick.

But there isnt any feasible alternative when there is
no camera operator to keep tracking what matters.

Could have some kind of fancy gyroscopic thing or an electronic
alternative to make the camera stay still.

Trouble is that it then wouldn't be looking at
what the wearer of the camera is looking at.

That's the whole point of those action cameras, they track
what the person whose head its attached to is looking at
and that does usually produce the best result, even if it
does have the downside of making some a bit seasick.

The big professional shoulder mounted
cameras the pros use do produce a much
better result, but cost a hell of a lot more too.

It can look the same way, just reduce the wobble.

Trouble is that there isnt the room for a decent gyro stablised
system in a head mounted camera and you'd need an external
power pack with its associated cabling even if it was possible.

Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said "or
an
electronic alternative".

There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.

Sony invented it decades ago.

But even theirs don't have it, so its more complicated than that.

It's on every single video camera nowadays,

Like hell it is in the sense that you get as good a result as with
the massive great shoulder mounted pro cameras the pros use.

But better than the wobbly selfie shots we see.

Nope, not with head mounted cameras that
see the background move around a lot.

so why not on selfie versions?

Because it doesn't work when the camera moves around that much.

I've seen it work well on a roller coaster etc.

That's a different situation, everything the camera
can see is all moving in the same way all the time.

It's called something like "steadyshot".

Sure, its useful for minor steadying, but that's all it can do.

Maybe it gets confused as most of the image is jumpy, yet the face in
the
centre is not.

Its more that the head mounted cameras move the background
around a hell of a lot more and the stuff that is being recorded
deliberately doesn't move around anything like as much.

I suppose it's slower movement rather than jolting.

Yeah, nothing to do with jolting.

You'd think they could easily adapt the programming.

Not even possible. Easy enough when the entire image
is moving due to the camera moving, but impossible
when its just the background moving and not the stuff
in the foreground. There is no way that any digital
real time processing can do anything about the wild
movements in the background that is the problem.

Easy enough for it to analyse everything around the edges and move the
frame to suit.

Not when what is in the center of field of view is doing something
completely different.

Have a look at that lion hugger video again, the person being
hugged by the lions isnt the problem its JUST the background.

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 18:52:15 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:23:07 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:


I recorded two episodes of songs of Praise a few weeks ago.
My tastes on what I want to watch can vary in.

How odd. Most people hate certain types of program and always have.

I can see no logical reason to hate certain types of program I might choose not to watch them or dislike them.
As for songs of praise it's not something I've watched before and as a work collegue is a singer and her chior was in two episdoes I decide to record them rather than sit through them.
I was going to offer her the right to sing a track written by a friend of mine as I thought a chior version might sound quite good and to give then something to sing about other than God. I played her the youtube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX1ECZOJI6Q

but she declined my offer :-)
I thought it quite appropriote as Jesus was meant to take the blame for us sinners.

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 19:45:33 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:58:07 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



Like opening a cat flap. You just push. There's no complicated handles
or catches, but every single bloody time they stroke it, claw at it, try
to rub it different ways....

Cant say I have ever had cat that does that.

50% of cats I've had do that.

The other stupid thing they do is two try to go through at once, which usually results in the destruction of the catflap.

You've never seen two people approach a door together .....


Just walk through damn it!

Didn't some of Dave the drunk's cats do that ?

Maybe they stole some of his whisky.

Yep I know about catflaps I was paid £100 and given a free catflap for this video I put on youtube they featured part of it in america on the Animal planet channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUBgEZ5fteU&t=18s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHNeKgu1k34


But it's a lot easier to train a cat or kitten to use a litter tray than a
dog.

Presumably because they are a lot more fussy than dogs.

What revolts me is my cat eats her kittens ****.

Interesting as scientists have found some adult fish become more youthful if they eat the **** of young fish.
As yuo probbaly dont believe me or fiund this a s weird as I first did.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ish-feces.html

Oh and doing similar by injecting the blood of young mice into older mice made older mice live longer.
A bit like Countess Elizabeth Báthory perhaps.

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 20:10:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:03:02 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:


Trouble is that there isnt the room for a decent gyro stablised
system in a head mounted camera and you'd need an external
power pack with its associated cabling even if it was possible.

Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said "or an
electronic alternative".

There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.

Sony invented it decades ago.

But even theirs don't have it, so its more complicated than that.

It's on every single video camera nowadays, so why not on selfie versions? It's called something like "steadyshot". Maybe it gets confused as most of the image is jumpy, yet the face in the centre is not. You'd think they could easily adapt the programming.

Most cameras nowadays have image stabalisation built in so there's little need for such a device for most purposes.

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 19:45:33 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
What revolts me is my cat eats her kittens ****.

This is to protect the kittens from infection (their immune systems won't be fully developed) and from the smell attracting predators (the kittens haven't learned to bury it yet).

Owain

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:58:18 +0100, wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 19:45:33 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
What revolts me is my cat eats her kittens ****.

This is to protect the kittens from infection (their immune systems won't be fully developed) and from the smell attracting predators (the kittens haven't learned to bury it yet).

Surely she should carry it or bury it or something? Digesting it is only going to make her ill. Imagine what would happen to your gut if you were to eat all the **** 5 of your babies produced.

--
An English woman who has been blind for 26 years got her sight back after suffering a heart attack.
Unfortunately, after she was able to see her doctors bill she had several more heart attacks.

En el artículo ,
escribió:

the smell attracting predators (the kittens haven't
learned to bury it yet).

Mine used the tray from the day it was put down. Only one little
accident. Mornings are funny, I empty and clean the tray and put it down
with fresh litter and they all charge for it. Synchronised pooing
ensues.

More pics coming RSN.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:17:40 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artículo ,
escribió:

the smell attracting predators (the kittens haven't
learned to bury it yet).

Mine used the tray from the day it was put down. Only one little
accident. Mornings are funny, I empty and clean the tray and put it down
with fresh litter and they all charge for it. Synchronised pooing
ensues.

More pics coming RSN.

Trays are for the first two weeks you get a cat, then they do it outside.. The stench would otherwise be unbearable.

--
The microwave was invented after a researcher walked by a radar
tube and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:29:56 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 13:13:32 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:33:26 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 15:52:37 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:47:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 18/04/2017 15:40, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 05:36:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 13:18:09 UTC+1, Chris Bartram wrote:

I'll agree that really it should have been OT, but it's pretty obvious
you'll find nothing of interest there, huh?

If he couldn't work out that 'kittens' was OT

What the left brainers often can't comprehend is that many people
don't necessarily mark their threads literally and so any links
contained within *could* still be DIY related (like the picture of a
kitten (supposedly) holding an electric drill or something equally
sad). If they didn't they would have been marked OT eh?

he should stick to discussing things with Rod, Wilkinson and the whiskied bloke.

IYHO I'm guessing?

See, sometimes even the trolls, nutters and whisky soaked come up with
something interesting or funny (unlike the Linux geeks who never do)
and that's why I don't use a kilfile (and never have).

Right brainers have the ability to choose what to read and who to
ignore and do so based on such fuzzy logic that would have a Linux
geek / left brainer frothing (more) at the mouth. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Same here, I've never even considered using a killfile.

Don't either of you get fed up of reading through 20 posts to find 1 that's interesting? It would be like watching every single TV program instead of selecting them based on title.

Do you watch every single thing on TV to find out whether it;s any good or not ?
Personally I don;t have kill files and I don't need someone to hand me a list of things I don't want to watch I don;t make a list of things I dont want to watch either. I just watch what I feel like watching I don't feel the need to have a list of things not to watch, why would I ?

So you don't find it tedious reading through 100s of channels which are 99% ****e, just to find a few programs to watch that day?

Not really I know what channels are most likely to have stuff on I wish to watch so I tend to view those first and skip the others.
I''m not intrested in signing up for one of those roulete ganes you can have on the TV or mobile device but I have been know to listen to the T&Cs because I found them interesting, far more intresting than theresa may announcing an election for the 100th well 5 or 6th time I;d heard those words last night.

I see no point in wasting my brainpower sifting through ****e when my computer can do it for me. Tell me, do you use a mangle, a carpet sweeper, a push mower?

--
My sex life is so bad that when I called one of those phone sex lines,
a voice came on and said, "Not tonight. I have an earache."

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:29:36 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 20:10:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:03:02 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:


Trouble is that there isnt the room for a decent gyro stablised
system in a head mounted camera and you'd need an external
power pack with its associated cabling even if it was possible.

Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said "or an
electronic alternative".

There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.

Sony invented it decades ago.

But even theirs don't have it, so its more complicated than that.

It's on every single video camera nowadays, so why not on selfie versions? It's called something like "steadyshot". Maybe it gets confused as most of the image is jumpy, yet the face in the centre is not. You'd think they could easily adapt the programming.

Most cameras nowadays have image stabalisation built in so there's little need for such a device for most purposes.

So why isn't it on selfie stick ones?

--
There's a word you are misunderstanding or misinterpreting, whether explicitly or by necessary and inescapable implication.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:25:44 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 19:45:33 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:58:07 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



Like opening a cat flap. You just push. There's no complicated handles
or catches, but every single bloody time they stroke it, claw at it, try
to rub it different ways....

Cant say I have ever had cat that does that.

50% of cats I've had do that.

The other stupid thing they do is two try to go through at once, which usually results in the destruction of the catflap.

You've never seen two people approach a door together .....

Yes, one says "after you".

Just walk through damn it!

Didn't some of Dave the drunk's cats do that ?

Maybe they stole some of his whisky.

Yep I know about catflaps I was paid £100 and given a free catflap for this video I put on youtube they featured part of it in america on the Animal planet channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUBgEZ5fteU&t=18s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHNeKgu1k34

How come that doesn't happen here? I've got only TWO cats from other people that come in my house. And six cats of my own. The two are from my next door neighbour and someone a block away.

But it's a lot easier to train a cat or kitten to use a litter tray than a
dog.

Presumably because they are a lot more fussy than dogs.

What revolts me is my cat eats her kittens ****.

Interesting as scientists have found some adult fish become more youthful if they eat the **** of young fish.
As yuo probbaly dont believe me or fiund this a s weird as I first did..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ish-feces.html

Oh and doing similar by injecting the blood of young mice into older mice made older mice live longer.
A bit like Countess Elizabeth Báthory perhaps.

Related to stem cell technology probably. But would you eat your baby's ****?

--
There's a word you are misunderstanding or misinterpreting, whether explicitly or by necessary and inescapable implication.

Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said
"or an
electronic alternative".

There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.

Sony invented it decades ago.

But even theirs don't have it, so its more complicated than that.

It's on every single video camera nowadays, so why not on selfie
versions? It's called something like "steadyshot". Maybe it gets
confused as most of the image is jumpy, yet the face in the centre is
not. You'd think they could easily adapt the programming.

Most cameras nowadays have image stabalisation built in so there's
little need for such a device for most purposes.

So why isn't it on selfie stick ones?

They've had it for years:

15 smartphone cameras with optical image stabilization - Phone Arena
www.phonearena.com ۼ News
14 Dec 2014

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:25:25 +0100, Bod wrote:


Someone with exceptional intelligence called James recently said
"or an
electronic alternative".

There is no electronic alternative that is cheap enough.
If there was, they'd be selling like hot cakes.

Sony invented it decades ago.

But even theirs don't have it, so its more complicated than that.

It's on every single video camera nowadays, so why not on selfie
versions? It's called something like "steadyshot". Maybe it gets
confused as most of the image is jumpy, yet the face in the centre is
not. You'd think they could easily adapt the programming.

Most cameras nowadays have image stabalisation built in so there's
little need for such a device for most purposes.

So why isn't it on selfie stick ones?

They've had it for years:

15 smartphone cameras with optical image stabilization - Phone Arena
www.phonearena.com ۼ News
14 Dec 2014

I've yet to see a video from one that looks stabilized.

--
We cannot see the future.
We cannot change the past.
We can only live in the now, with an eye towards gaining enough
power in the future to wreak revenge on everyone who ever screwed
us in the past.