>> We certainly need to build up a head of steam. Perhaps we
>> should pick one of our number at random and publicly flame them.
>
>yea, you idiot.
>
>;)
>

Tosser :-P Call that a website? etc...

> We certainly need to build up a head of steam. Perhaps we
> should pick one of our number at random and publicly flame them.

yea, you idiot.

;)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dragonthief [mailto:michael@...]
> Sent: 02 December 2002 12:33
> To: ukbloggers-social@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [UKB Social] cacophany vs silence
>
>
> >   From: Rich Wild <r.wild@...>
> >   Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:40:51 -0000
> >
> >I'm not sure whether I prefer this list full of shouty
> arguments and insults
> >(before) or completely devoid of any discussion at all (now).
> >
> >It sure is quiet these days. Was disagreement with Gerard
> the only thing
> >that connected ukbloggers?
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >Rich Wild
> >http://www.funjunkie.co.uk
> >-------------------------------------------------------
>
> We certainly need to build up a head of steam. Perhaps we
> should pick one of our number at random and publicly flame them.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/CBxunD/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/IHFolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
>
> http://weblogs.co.uk/ukb/
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>   From: Rich Wild <r.wild@...>
>   Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:40:51 -0000
>
>I'm not sure whether I prefer this list full of shouty arguments and insults
>(before) or completely devoid of any discussion at all (now).
>
>It sure is quiet these days. Was disagreement with Gerard the only thing
>that connected ukbloggers?
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Rich Wild
>http://www.funjunkie.co.uk
>-------------------------------------------------------

We certainly need to build up a head of steam. Perhaps we should pick one of our
number at random and publicly flame them.

I'm not sure whether I prefer this list full of shouty arguments and insults
(before) or completely devoid of any discussion at all (now).

It sure is quiet these days. Was disagreement with Gerard the only thing
that connected ukbloggers?

-------------------------------------------------------
Rich Wild
http://www.funjunkie.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------

(Before this message will make any sense, you will need to be armed with the
knowledge that I've quit the bullshit computer industry and returned to the
noble and more lucrative trade of carpentry.)


(hand on hip, scratching head, sucking air through teeth) Well, I don't know
love - it's going to cost you...


As you may know, I've been busy making people's homes more beautiful for
hard cash. I love it so much, I can't quite remember why I left the trade to
mess about on computers and these days I'm a far healthier, happier person.
I've even stopped scowling at children. And all it really took was a ?200
advert in the weblog community's favourite publication, the Richmond
Informer [1].

I've landed some big contracts. One is a loft conversion in Barnes, one's a
house-into-flats job in Staines (big up the Staines massive), there's a
whole house to sort out in Langley, some walls need moving around in
Deptford, and today the biggest of the lot - the complete refurbishment of a
near-derelict four-floor terrace in Bermondsey. That's me more or less
booked up for about nine months. However, I have a problem.

I need people. Lots of people. I've rifled through my contacts and sourced
all the skilled labour I need (plumbers, sparkies, painters and the like):
what I don't have is unskilled labour. Mooks, if you will.

If you or anyone you can think of is between jobs, within reach of the
south-east, and fancies putting some cash in your pocket, let me know. We
can also offer food, transport and (possibly) accommodation into the
bargain, and can be very flexible on working hours and duration. Mooks need
no prior knowledge of the trade (or, indeed, anything): just some clothes
you don't mind showering in plaster dust, and a seething hatred of MDF (and
other crappy fads popularised by Handy bloody Andy). It's surprisingly
satisfying work, and probably the most difficult thing about it is
remembering all the comedy names I give to my tools. Pass me the
bubble-stick, would you?

I'm not exactly sure on the amount of cash on offer at this moment -
obviously it won't be enormous but certainly far more profitable than the
dole, far more honourable than a life of crime, and far more rewarding than
stacking shelves. The ideal thing with which to busy oneself while looking
for that elusive contract at a Soho design agency.

Know anyone? Drop us a line.

Thanks,
MM


p.s. Thanks to an astounding misunderstanding at Jewson's, I have over 18
metric tons of solid oak flooring timber on pallets in Tilbury Docks with no
home of their own. If you fancy a proper wooden floor putting down for less
than it costs to fit laminate (damn you Carol Smillie), let me know and I'll
send you some lovely pictures of the ones we fitted in the last month. I've
also got 6 solid pine internal doors going spare if anyone can make use of
them...



[1] http://infinitemonkeys.co.uk/gasgiant/images/informer.html

At 12:02 GMT 12.11.02, Mo Morgan wrote:
:
: (specifically on servers where PHP is set with $register_globals=on)

the thread is a bit misleading - the SPECIFIC command that was being used
needed register_globals to be on, but it would still be straight forward
to compromise graymatter with it set to off.

it's not a hole in register globals (which is only a security risk from
the point of view of writing PHP scripts), but just a hole in GM :)

--cal
"i want to be different, like everybody else"

Paul Ohskylab just brought a Greymatter exploit to my attention, and wanted
me to make you lot aware. It only affects Greymatter/PHP weblogs
(specifically on servers where PHP is set with $register_globals=on)

Full info is here: http://foshdawg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2771

MM

I doubt it. the IP address doesn't look right.

MM

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Wild [mailto:r.wild@...]
Sent: 06 November 2002 09:15
To: 'ukbloggers-social@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [UKB Social] mastodonte

"Don't buy from Nestle -- they kill babies in Africa! And watch Donnie
Darko, it'll make you rethink things."

that wasn't Tom perchance? ;)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mo Morgan [mailto:momorgan@...]
> Sent: 06 November 2002 09:14
> To: ukbloggers-social@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [UKB Social] mastodonte
>
>
> > > I shall compile them at some point.
> >
> > fun!
>
> At it turned out, that point was this morning.
>
> http://momorgan.com/mastodonte/
>
> I think we made the point, don't you? ;)
>
> MM
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Wild [mailto:r.wild@...]
> Sent: 06 November 2002 08:44
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/JjlUgA/vN2EAA/kG8FAA/IHFolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
>
> http://weblogs.co.uk/ukb/
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> > I shall compile them at some point.
>
> fun!

At it turned out, that point was this morning.

http://momorgan.com/mastodonte/

I think we made the point, don't you? ;)

MM




-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Wild [mailto:r.wild@...]
Sent: 06 November 2002 08:44

> I shall compile them at some point.

fun!

I've recorded all the messages that have been sent to mastodonte. I shall
compile them at some point.

MM



-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Wild [mailto:r.wild@...]
Sent: 05 November 2002 16:03
To: 'ukbloggers-social@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [UKB Social] mastodonte

At 16:12 GMT 05.11.02, Matthew Bloch wrote:
:
: Can anyone who's tried the freezer trick share their experience?  Or can
: anyone think of a slightly less drastic, water-prone method of cooling it to
: not far off zero?  I assume my fridge is going to be pretty damp, so I'm
: loathe to try that.

why not seal it in a food bag then freeze it so it doesn't get wet?

--cal
"i want to be different, like everybody else"

Matthew Bloch wrote:
> Has anyone here had first-hand experience of trying to recover a dead hard
> drive by extreme cooling techniques?

Having read up on it a while back, I seem to remeber that freezing is only
good if the heads have stuck to the surface of the hard drive. freezing is
one approach to unsticking them.

if the disk is making whirring scratching sounds, freezing may not help, and
everytime you boot it up, you could be making the situation worse (the heads
could be scittering across the surface of the disks doing
who-knows-what-damage).

having said that - if you do decide to freeze it, and it doesn't work, whos to
know if you send it back to collect on the warranty?

Fwiw, I'm sitting on a hard drive that contains all my work, all my mp3's, all
my emails, but has died. seems as though it won't power up.

but I still cling on it to in some futile hope that a solution will present
itself. ah well...

good luck,

Carl


--
carl huber | wet web work | glue London

Has anyone here had first-hand experience of trying to recover a dead hard
drive by extreme cooling techniques?  I've got a illegible hard drive full of
music files that makes a noise like an angry wasp in a tin when the power is
connected.  I've heard that putting a drive in the freezer for an hour or so
will cool it enough for you to back things up off it.  My dilemma is that if
I send back the drive for replacement (which is is eligible for), I will lose
the data, but if I freeze the drive to attempt to recover the data, IBM will
refuse to replace it since I've caused it physical damage.  Annoyingly it's
one of those "cursed" Deskstar models that were rife a couple of years ago
and are the subject of a class action suit against IBM, so I'm sure it's no
surprise to their tech. supoprt that my drive is dead before its time.

Can anyone who's tried the freezer trick share their experience?  Or can
anyone think of a slightly less drastic, water-prone method of cooling it to
not far off zero?  I assume my fridge is going to be pretty damp, so I'm
loathe to try that.

cheers,

--
Matthew       > http://www.soup-kitchen.net/
               > ICQ 19482073

sorry, that was amour.php, not armour.php, although I think they would have
more need for armour.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Wild [mailto:r.wild@...]
> Sent: 05 November 2002 15:52
> To: 'ukbloggers-social@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: [UKB Social] mastodonte
>
>
> did anyone manage to get a screenie of the mastodonte
> armour.php page before
> they pulled it? Thought it would be interesting reading...
>
> Rich
> http://www.funjunkie.co.uk
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/JjlUgA/vN2EAA/kG8FAA/IHFolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
>
> http://weblogs.co.uk/ukb/
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

did anyone manage to get a screenie of the mastodonte armour.php page before
they pulled it? Thought it would be interesting reading...

Rich
http://www.funjunkie.co.uk

Yup - we're all here (well most of us, anyhoo)

On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 10:06  am, carlhuberuk wrote:

> Btw - hope I'm posting this to the correct group - and are there any
> members left? Or have they all been left behind?

> where was the mention of the vote?

It's there in the old archives somewhere. It was a little too quick for some
I know, but I like to follow the advice of old wives and strike irons while
hot.

> still get messages delivered at odd times

Yes, though I've been talking to a human at Yahoo (yes, really - they have
humans) who reckons they're looking into the delivery issues right now. Not
sure how much faith I have in them yet, though time will tell.

> hope I'm posting this to the correct group

Yes. It really is as simple as it appears :-)

> are there any members left? Or
> have they all been left behind?

Members are making their way over slowly - the numbers are picking up day by
day. Both lists may be a little quiet this week - it'll probably be a few
more days until everyone is up to speed.

MM



-----Original Message-----
From: carlhuberuk [mailto:carl@...]
Sent: 05 November 2002 10:07
To: ukbloggers-social@yahoogroups.com

I take Friday and Monday off, comeback, and find ukbloggers has all
changed!

And where was the mention of the vote? Never saw it mentioned, just
the results, whick maybe means changing everything is a good idea, but
we have failed to move away from yahoo groups which means we will
still get messages delivered at odd times ( and sometimes not at all
).

Oh well...

Btw - hope I'm posting this to the correct group - and are there any
members left? Or have they all been left behind?

Carl

> PS I take it that weblogs.co.uk is going to be the new,
> brand-spanking dooberry to bring this whole debauched
> mess together under one roof?

Something like that ;)
Network issues are holding me up at the moment, as are other tiresome chores
such as the perpetual search for employment.

You wouldn't believe the amount of toil that went into securing the domain.
Non-paying domain-squatters nil, civilised society one.

MM


-----Original Message-----
From: bobbie.johnson@...
[mailto:bobbie.johnson@...]
Sent: 04 November 2002 19:56
To: ukbloggers-social@yahoogroups.com

Tom Coates wrote:
> Yeah I guess that makes a certain amount of sense...


I thought it made quite a lot of sense, actually.

If people don't bother to read their UKB emails and miss the information sent
out to them about subbing to both lists, why are they more likely to understand
the difference if they are being bombarded by mail from one or other of the two
sub-lists?

If they want to subscribe, let them do it of their own free will
(self-determination rules OK!)

If (a) somebody hasn't bothered to vote in the future of UKB and (b) they only
receive UKB-Announce mails, then it probably says a lot more about the way they
want to use this group than we might first imagine.

Ack!

Bobbie
http://bobzilla.co.uk/weblog

PS I take it that weblogs.co.uk is going to be the new, brand-spanking dooberry
to bring this whole debauched mess together under one roof?

Yeah I guess that makes a certain amount of sense...

On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 04:05  pm, Mo Morgan wrote:

>> They still get mail to [announce] right?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Why not periodically invite them via that?
>
> That was my own intention, though I'm happy to do more if the group
> decides.

> They still get mail to [announce] right?

Yes.

> Why not periodically invite them via that?

That was my own intention, though I'm happy to do more if the group decides.

MM


-----Original Message-----
From: Dragonthief [mailto:michael@...]
Sent: 04 November 2002 16:00
To: ukbloggers-social@yahoogroups.com

>   From: "Tom Coates" <Tom.Coates@...>
>   Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 15:53:34 -0000
>
>Hey guys - I was thinking (and I've pitched it to Mo, but he's reserved about
>hte idea) about how we get everyone back into these two groups. Seems to
>me that the easiest way to do it - since everyone was already subscrbed
>beforehand - would be to simply resubscribe them all automatically.
>
They still get mail to [announce] right? Why not periodically invite them via
that?

Hey guys - I was thinking (and I've pitched it to Mo, but he's reserved about
hte idea) about how we get everyone back into these two groups. Seems to
me that the easiest way to do it - since everyone was already subscrbed
beforehand - would be to simply resubscribe them all automatically.

This obviously has the problems of not changing the culture at all, or making
clear the difference between the two lists. On the other hand, if we DON'T
invite everyone back, then it's possible that people will just miss the fact
that
the place has relaunched... I mean, I did until Cal told me...

How about something in the middle? We can't reinvite everyone into social,
otherwise discuss will just die immediately - but if we invited everyone into
DISCUSS, and made it clear that there was a social group that was separate
for banter and the like (maybe put it on the e-mail somewhere), then we'd
probably get a lot more movement, with people deciding what side of the
pond to sit on (or to straddle it)...

Thoughts?

Quick question - is there anyone who DOESN'T know that you can turn of the
HTML e-mail? I mean, it's such an important part of using Yahoogroups that I
think it's important that we make this REALLY CLEAR. You can turn that crap
off...

--- In ukbloggers-social@y..., "Mo Morgan" <momorgan@m...> wrote:
> Yes - I haven't dismissed the idea. It's just that Yahoo exists, and is
> quite good at what it does. Sure, it dumps four extra lines in each email,
> but that's not too much of a big deal really. Unless of course you've turned
> on the "convert to HTML" function in your membership, and Christ alone
knows
> why you'd want to do that.

> It's those kind of statistics that got Bush elected :-)

Well, quite. But, if people have no preference, then that's what we have
with which to work. On balance though, the state of a mailing list is of
slightly less importance than who should head a superpower :)

> Did you consider moving the lists off Yahoo by the way?

Yes - I haven't dismissed the idea. It's just that Yahoo exists, and is
quite good at what it does. Sure, it dumps four extra lines in each email,
but that's not too much of a big deal really. Unless of course you've turned
on the "convert to HTML" function in your membership, and Christ alone knows
why you'd want to do that.

MM

On Sunday 03 November 2002 00:20, Mo Morgan wrote:
> The results of the vote on the future of ukbloggers are:
>
> YES - I'd rather the list was split up: 20
> NO - I'm happy with the way things are: 15
> Members who chose not to vote:  166 (or thereabouts)
>
> To aid analysis, the poll was constructed specifically to gather the
> opinion of members with a preference, therefore the "yes" vote won through.

It's those kind of statistics that got Bush elected :-)

Did you consider moving the lists off Yahoo by the way?  I'd assumed that this
would have been in the offing if you were planning a reshuffle, especially if
you were going to the bother of setting up a new weblogs portal.

--
Matthew       > http://www.soup-kitchen.net/
               > ICQ 19482073

The UKB-Social list is now open for business.

Details about the new list structure can be found at
http://weblogs.co.uk/ukb/

MM