The Underscore Archives

Hi Everyone,

my laptop screen is dying (I'm squinting into a lurid turquoise screen 
as I type) so I need something to work on while it goes back to the factory.

If anyone has a PC they want to sell/give-away/lend I'd be very 
interested to hear about it.

Ideally (and I know this is unlikely) I need something running XP 
(although I may install Ubuntu), with an ethernet port. And a flat 
screen would be a bonus as I've got limited space.

Or if you know of a good place to get a deal on a complete set-up with 
v.fast delivery please send those links along too.

I'm in Cotham if that helps

Cheers

Joel (the new one)

underscore-request at under-score.org.uk wrote:
> Send Underscore mailing list submissions to
> 	underscore at under-score.org.uk
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.under-score.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/underscore
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	underscore-request at under-score.org.uk
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	underscore-owner at under-score.org.uk
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Underscore digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Charlie Brooker on Macs (Raymond Brooks)
>    2. Re: Tables - screaming silently (Tim Beadle)
>    3. Re: Charlie Brooker on Macs (Michael Trim)
>    4. Re: Tables - screaming silently (Tim Beadle)
>    5. Re: Tables - screaming silently (Tom Gidden)
>    6. Re: Translations from possibly, chinese (Thayer)
>    7. Re: Charlie Brooker on Macs (Tim Beadle)
>    8. Re: What a school wants (Tim Beadle)
>    9. Re: Charlie Brooker on Macs (Steve Roome)
>   10. Re: Charlie Brooker on Macs (jonf at hyperlaunch.com)
>   11. Re: What a school wants (Stefan Goodchild)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 13:27:29 +0000
> From: Raymond Brooks <ray at conscious.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [_] Charlie Brooker on Macs
> To: underscore at under-score.org.uk
> Message-ID: <45C88241.2020805 at conscious.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Michael Trim wrote:
>   
>>> highly objective that article is. 
>>>     
>>>       
>> Yes
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> however good brooker may be at wordsmithery
>>>     
>>>       
>> Yes
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> and sitcom scripts, 
>>>     
>>>       
>> Mmm, less yes
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> he clearly values wit (his own, natch) over hard fact and that's why he
>>>     
>>>       
>> shouldn't be allowed to write for newspapers.
>>
>> Rubbish, it's his vitriolic style that has made him so popular and he
>> regularly admits as much in many of his columns. I think he's fantastic
>> and consistently the funniest column writer in the UK today.
>>
>> I also agree with the basic argument of the article (stripping away the
>> caustic trolling) that the choice of Mitchell and Webb for the apple ads
>> was a strange and bad choice as neither character was (at best)
>> particularly likeable. 
>>
>> To me it's a bit of an in joke for people that can see the similarity to
>> the US ads and make that leap. To john average UK consumer it's a
>> slightly ridiculous proposition. That's my opinion anyway (are we
>> allowed to talk marketing on [_]?) and I was having the very same
>> conversation the day before this article appeared.
>>
>>   
>>     
>   so just because someone vents his spleen well and is popular, it means 
> his opinions are valid? equally rubbish. what he's actually giving us 
> are his opinions on the people that use a piece of technology he doesn't 
> like and of which he quite clearly has no experience. i fail to see the 
> value in such commentary. it tells me nothing apart from what charlie 
> brooker thinks the world is like and in this case, he's clearly uninformed.
>   as some measure of comparison, i went to see another sometime grauniad 
> journalist, russell brand, perform at the new oxford theatre on sunday 
> night. he was a self ingratiating tosser that obviously hadn't prepared 
> any material and instead strutted around like a prick begging women to 
> come on stage and remove his trousers. it was so stomach churningly 
> poor, in fact, that i had no choice but to leave halfway through and get 
> smashed on cider in a boozer over the road.
>
> rx
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:33:31 +0000
> From: "Tim Beadle" <tim.beadle at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [_] Tables - screaming silently
> To: underscore at under-score.org.uk
> Message-ID:
> 	<c4dd29660702060533p3bb31e75o1700def447c4d8a6 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 06/02/07, Steve Roome <steve at pepcross.com> wrote:
>   
>> Seems to me like a complete waste of time and energy. But, can the
>> combined wisdom of underscore find any examples of a table based site
>> that doesn't work because it's NOT all divs and css. (not just becasue
>> they missed all the closing tags). I've never seen one, yet all these
>> webheds keep harping on about it, about ten years on! *Snore*
>>     
>
> I really don't want to dignify your rant with a response, but - hey -
> define "work" ;) Looking "right" in a desktop browser is such a
> limited vision of the web it's untrue.
>
> I want my markup to be meaningful. I want it to use a presentation
> layer that adapts to the device viewing it. I want advanced
> interactivity. I want *no-one* to be excluded from my content (subject
> to them using a HTTP 1.1-capable user-agent). I want attractive,
> usable design, at minimal bandwidth cost.
>
> All this is possible with Web Standards - (X)HTML for markup, CSS for
> layout, DOM Scripting for interactivity. Not all of these are possible
> with table layout techniques that were only invented/discovered
> *because at the time there was no alternative at the time*. Now there
> is, and it's entirely churlish to think that, because there's no
> superficial difference in the rendering of a table-layout page vs a
> CSS-layout one, this stuff doesn't matter or is some kind of cargo
> cult.
>
>   
>> Anyway, most websites, imo, probably ought to be just one big imagemap
>> [*3] per page.
>>     
>
> And that's useful how, exactly? You must use lynx now and then, Steve...
>
>   
>> We've all got enough bandwidth now anyway.
>>     
>
> Except when you're on your mobile, paying by the MB.
>
>   
>>         Steve - as belligerent [*2] web hating techie.
>>     
>
> Come on in, the water's lovely. You just have to lighten up a bit ;)
>
>   
>> 3: Yes you can have ALT tags for all the blind folk who spend their
>>    spare time surfing the web for corporate brochureware and nekked
>>    chicks, which of course happens a lot.
>>     
>
> Your biggest "blind folk"? Googlebot...
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:42:51 -0000
> From: "Michael Trim" <Michael.trim at ibltd.com>
> Subject: Re: [_] Charlie Brooker on Macs
> To: <underscore at under-score.org.uk>
> Message-ID:
> 	<F66AF211789C924BB25FF6334E06D61F4078E7 at IBL-EX-01.hms.nsidatacentre.co.uk>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
>   
>> so just because someone vents his spleen well and is popular, it means 
>>     
> his opinions are valid? equally rubbish. what he's actually giving us 
> are his opinions on the people that use a piece of technology he doesn't
>
> like and of which he quite clearly has no experience. i fail to see the 
> value in such commentary. it tells me nothing apart from what charlie 
> brooker thinks the world is like and in this case, he's clearly
> uninformed.
>
> Personally think it was more about the use of Mitchell & Webb (he's a TV
> columnist) couched in his own style, which many people do enjoy. Judging
> by the large amount of people who did find the article funny then I'd
> say a little joy is reason enough. 
>
>   
>>>  as some measure of comparison, i went to see another sometime
>>>       
> grauniad 
> journalist, russell brand, perform at the new oxford theatre on sunday 
> night. he was a self ingratiating tosser that obviously hadn't prepared 
> any material and instead strutted around like a prick begging women to 
> come on stage and remove his trousers. it was so stomach churningly 
> poor, in fact, that i had no choice but to leave halfway through and get
>
> smashed on cider in a boozer over the road.
>
> With you there brother :)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:34:27 +0000
> From: "Tim Beadle" <tim.beadle at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [_] Tables - screaming silently
> To: underscore at under-score.org.uk
> Message-ID:
> 	<c4dd29660702060534u4b66086fx68e2e7962d5e0d6b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 06/02/07, Tim Beadle <tim.beadle at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> *because at the time there was no alternative at the time*.
>>     
>
> Damn and blast. You know what I mean...
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:35:07 +0000
> From: Tom Gidden <tom at gidden.net>
> Subject: Re: [_] Tables - screaming silently
> To: underscore at under-score.org.uk
> Message-ID: <5BB7E64A-731D-4852-80C5-E000C10CACE1 at gidden.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> On 6 Feb 2007, at 13:15, Steve Roome wrote:
>
>   
>> No you don't it was rubbish :)
>>     
>
> True, but then again so were the rest of the CGI games I wrote, and I  
> was getting about 100,000 hits a day.  *shrug*
>
> Alas, all that code is gone.  I lost the backups about twelve years ago.
>
> Tom
>
>