HotPhil

17 hours ago, RollingJ said:

As a point of interest, these buses may be 'free at the point of use', but they still have to be paid for somehow. The drivers still want paying, the electricity company still wants paying, as do the engineers who will maintain them...

Just leave it aside and enjoy the nice things for 5 mins

On 19/02/2019 at 01:45, DerbyTup said:

 road that purports to be Sheffield's "Champs Elysees".  

I needed a good laugh

Wherever that review was from, there's either more to it, or it's just plain wrong.

One thing to watch for, depending on if/when you buy a new laptop is that it may well come with a trial of a new(er) version of Office. You may want to uninstall that first. Although, if it's Office 365, it's (imo) well worth it.

Rather than Infirmary Road I just used to head from Malin Bridge down to Penistone road and get on the car-free cycle path there. If you don't fancy the hill, you could potentially just follow the ring-road/cut through the city centre to get near Waitrose.

What is so wrong with these schemes is the fact that if you don't want a parking permit scheme in on your road and it gets voted in to have one

In a way, that would be fairer as the schemes aren't "voted in". The council may or may not choose to do a "consultation" in the area before putting a scheme in. But they're under no obligation to act on the results of any consultation (if they decide to do one).

Only place to "vote" for it is at the ballot box when there's council elections. But it would mean people would have to go and vote. And possibly (gasp) forget about national party issues or their long-standing "I'll never vote for party x because of what they did a lifetime ago" and actually vote on local issues.

Yep, be careful what you wish for. Understand fully what's involved. I often found it interesting that the council never mention the schemes as being in any way for "residents".

As pointed out, you might be able to apply for a permit or two and hand over more cash to the council for nowt. No guarantee you'll get the number of permits you want and they don't mean you get a space to park. Just that if you can find a space, you're allowed to. And remember that the schemes reduce the number of spaces available when the council re-paint the road markings for them.

Many people seem to be in favour of them. But personally I couldn't understand the idea of paying money to make a situation worse (as it became on my road).

Sandwich eaters are amongst the most discourteous people on the planet, you can be sat on a bench having a smoke and some idiot will come and unwrap next to you.

They'd ask to use the old carbons. And a lot of systems have a "floor limit" under which they'll take the details of the card automatically and just process it overnight.

Does sound like another big stuff up in the IT though.

Always have two different cards, from two different issuers, using two different payment orgs

I always know it's nearly Christmas when the card from Nirmal's arrives. I'll have to rely on some other reminder now.

This gets me so angry This report seems to have been written by some 15 year old with no knowledge of English grammer ( ITV for you) There is no such word as GOTTEN in the English language!!!!

 

In Bold - People in glass houses...?

So, they're thinking of basically making the station approachable only if you drive a cab. Good work.

I'm always still staggered when I think of all that space they had/have and how badly thought out it was. But then I think of the long queues for the paltry number of ticket machines and remember that they couldn't even take money off people properly, never mind organise a public space and the related approach needs.

Maybe if they knocked the ticket office down and put some kind of undercover taxi rank there, extend out the front a small way for the ticket office and then allow cars to use the modified taxi access route. Oh, wait a minute.

Solutions to the quoted problems of speeding and driving into coned areas:

Ticket those that ignore the speed limits.

Use barriers instead of cones.

Don't close off sections of road when there's no need.

 

Not rocket science really.

 

And muddywolf's right - 2 reported incidents is hardly a massive number.

Surface 2.

Only 34 parking spaces? That should be fun.

That's what is so wrong with the system is that on a road of say 100 if 51 voted for it and 49 was against it it would be brought in so you would have NO choice but to pay and that can't be right!!!!

It's worse than that - there's no "voting". People are offered a say in a "consultation". Then the collected data is packaged up and presented to the council for a decision.

Even if 100% of people replied to a "consultation" and 100% of them said they didn't want it, the council can still decide to put the scheme in.

The only place to change it is the ballot box when it's local election time.

Forget all the trading standards/CAB - you haven't given a formal opportunity to put things right.

I can see why Sky wouldn't cancel a service until they are sure they have to (otherwise the thread would be "I rang Sky to tell them I was moving provider and they cut the service then and there" - it's kind of a no-win situation for them).

There's a process called "porting" where a new provider will notify the old provider and take over. It sounds like Sky thought your new provider would put in a porting request and TalkTalk didn't do that (perhaps you told them you'd rung Sky to cancel?).

Either way, it's just an admin hiccup.

If you're sure of the facts, I'd be putting a written complaint into Sky. If they still say they won't refund, then (depending on how you paid), you may be able to get the money back from the bank (but that's then involving another party and won't address the issue that Sky provided a service they think they were meant to i.e. their "no payment received" processes might then kick in). Alternatively, you could pursue TalkTalk if you're sure you asked them to transfer the service.

In any case, I'd be doing all communication to all parties in the form of a letter now.

Can they be sneaky and lease the land (not sell it) to someone who'll knock the property down and build a new dwelling?

But the new report by Doncaster Council’s finance officers reveals even that re-tendering process is expected to cost taxpayers a further £15m – with the bill to be shared between the four South Yorkshire authorities and the Treasury.

If they want to send me the tenders, I'll sift through them. And I'll only charge 10m.

The Council did not draw any inference from anything that was not said.

Well, that's not correct. A small number of people initially asked for a scheme. From that, the council were quite happy to accept the inference that the entire area wanted it.

They choose to sit on whichever side of the fence suits them best at that moment.

It's what's listening at the other end and how they handle it. Think of it like a road network - you've got plenty of different routes to get from Sheffield to London. Some will be like the A1, some like the M1. It's not all the same cables provided by BT.

Then there's factors such as DNS which is like a phone book - your computer will ask a DNS server for the number of the website it's trying to reach. If the DNS server is slow to respond, your computer is sat waiting.

Co-Pilot has those features.

I've used it for years on a variety of devices/platforms. One thing though, they very very rarely release any updates other than for safety cameras.

It was fine before you took it there.

They worked on it.

It's now broken.

 

I'd say they need to sort it out. But I'd be a bit concerned they've decided to move the vehicle from their premises to another. I'd be asking their manager for a full, written explanation of what's happened and what they're doing now. These things tend to spiral - get something in writing from them before it all goes horrible.

Let them bear arms that existed when the Second Amendment was passed in 1791, ie. flintlock rifles.

 

Indeed. Or even clarify it so they can retain their precious right to bear arms, but not firearms.

 

Or just tax the sale of ammunition to the public at $1M a round.

Damn shame. Pringles are the best, you open the tube and its actually full of crisps.

They're just the starchy bits left over as part of the process of making "real" crisps. Same with Hula Hoops.

The Walkers trend of a bag full of identical, bland, tasteless crisps killed off real crisps. At least with Golden Wonder you got the odd green one or one that was a bit bad. Walker's are just sterile canvasses onto which they add flavour.

McCoy's have a bit of potato, but the bags are way smaller than when they first launched :-(

You can turn off all the User Account Control garbage in the Control Panel. It's the first thing I head for on any PC.