|
thompson1780
|
 |
« Reply #270 on: 20:28:59, 03-02-2008 » |
|
I've tried open with, and it takes ages too. If I want to listen again, I don't want to wait another 55 minutes!
Tommo
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #271 on: 21:15:32, 03-02-2008 » |
|
2. Firefox take me quit quickly
That step is unusual  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel
|
|
« Reply #272 on: 21:35:24, 03-02-2008 » |
|
Tommo,
Is there an anti-phishing filter or something similar on your security set-up? That sometimes cripples download speeds and can easily be turned off I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #273 on: 00:19:58, 04-02-2008 » |
|
I'm going to set a puzzle! No idea what number it is [...] Please don't dock me! Please don't dock me!  I come in peace, just to say that Andy's Puzzle is number 41. We would remind all Members that the place for this sort of thing is here not there. Henceforth we no longer intend to act with the leniency shown hitherto. Indeed indulgence seldom does any one any good; the effects of a certain quiet discipline will show themselves in all kinds of ways Members thus rewarded will soon find. We avail ourselves here of the opportunity to propose a first new rule relating to time limits for response to suggested answers once a puzzle has been set. Namely, the setter will lose 50 points for not responding to a suggestion within five hours, and twenty further points for each succeeding hour. What do Members say? A second new rule which may be welcomed is a limitation to or of the number of puzzles outstanding at any one time. Would it not be more conducive to mental concentration were we to permit only four say rather than the dozen or so presently racing unaddressed towards lapse? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 00:55:31, 04-02-2008 by Sydney Grew »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Il Grande Inquisitor
|
|
« Reply #274 on: 00:31:03, 04-02-2008 » |
|
We propose then new rule number 1 relating to time limits for response to suggested answers once a puzzle has been set. Namely, the setter will lose 50 points for not responding to a suggestion within five hours, and twenty further points for each succeeding hour. What do Members say?
That's rather harsh on those people who cannot access the boards when they're at work or, come to think of it, who want to sleep. I could post an answer now to Mr Baziron's No.36, for example, which he may not be able to respond to within 5 hours on the grounds that he is asleep!! A second new rule which may be welcomed is a limitation to the number of puzzles outstanding at any one time. Would it not concentrate the mind more to have only four say rather than the dozen or so presently racing unaddressed towards lapse?
I like having a number of puzzles open. In reality, there are only a few I could possibly hazard a guess at. Given that some members are having trouble opening files from some sources, I don't think it wise to limit the puzzles on offer this way; the three 'open' puzzles per setter limit we have at present is much more sensible. Also, the 4 puzzle limit regardless of who has posted them could stop members being able to post a puzzle in the first place. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 00:34:48, 04-02-2008 by Il Grande Inquisitor »
|
Logged
|
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #275 on: 02:34:53, 04-02-2008 » |
|
t_i_n, tell me if it's still not loading.
Sorry chafers, wasn't online since Friday afternoon until tonight. Just tried it, although there's nothing to guess any more. Works fine here, but I was at work when I couldn't get it to load. Will try again tomorrow and let you know. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #276 on: 08:29:00, 04-02-2008 » |
|
We propose then new rule number 1 relating to time limits for response to suggested answers once a puzzle has been set. Namely, the setter will lose 50 points for not responding to a suggestion within five hours, and twenty further points for each succeeding hour. What do Members say?
That's rather harsh on those people who cannot access the boards when they're at work or, come to think of it, who want to sleep. I could post an answer now to Mr Baziron's No.36, for example, which he may not be able to respond to within 5 hours on the grounds that he is asleep!! Darn it! Sussed again! How did you know IGI (is there a spy?)  Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #277 on: 08:43:06, 04-02-2008 » |
|
We avail ourselves here of the opportunity to propose a first new rule relating to time limits for response to suggested answers once a puzzle has been set. Namely, the setter will lose 50 points for not responding to a suggestion within five hours, and twenty further points for each succeeding hour. What do Members say?
We too would certainly not welcome wholeheartedly the first rule quite in this form. Quite often we do not have the possibility of visiting these hallowed boards with quite our usual regularity. Last week for example the pressures of work saw us visiting the boards for one or two minutes a day if that. On the other hand perhaps a time-lapse of 24 hours might be reasonable? In that case Members could avoid setting puzzles when they know they will not have the opportunity to reply regularly to suggestions in the following five days. We agree with Member Inquisitor that setting a certain number of 'open' puzzles per setter is the most reasonable strategy so as not to discourage new setters - although perhaps two per setter would cover all possible contingencies for setters other than the Inquisitor himself? (We have in mind to pose another puzzle from the singer of our currently open snatch to guide Members towards her identity while the first is still open - that would not be possible under a one-snatch-per-Member rule.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #278 on: 10:01:46, 04-02-2008 » |
|
The lack of attempts at number 24 is becoming hourly more astonishing to us! Mr. Martle's nibble was we may now say near indeed, but he did not return despite our invitation, and none other has yet emerged from among our host of erudite and cosmopolitan Members. Perhaps Members' memories may be stirred by a further excerpt from the work in question; it may be found HERE or HERE. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #279 on: 12:00:12, 04-02-2008 » |
|
That's rather harsh on those people who cannot access the boards when they're at work or, come to think of it, who want to sleep. I could post an answer now to Mr Baziron's No.36, for example, which he may not be able to respond to within 5 hours on the grounds that he is asleep!!
Indeed IGI. And what of correctly posted answers, that sit there for hours waiting for Sydney to judge  Maybe the poster of that correct answer could be awarded 20 points for every hour he has waited for the judgement and confirmation of correctness |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #280 on: 13:42:40, 04-02-2008 » |
|
That's rather harsh on those people who cannot access the boards when they're at work or, come to think of it, who want to sleep. I could post an answer now to Mr Baziron's No.36, for example, which he may not be able to respond to within 5 hours on the grounds that he is asleep!!
Indeed IGI. And what of correctly posted answers, that sit there for hours waiting for Sydney to judge Maybe the poster of that correct answer could be awarded 20 points for every hour he has waited for the judgement and confirmation of correctness I think that would be a bit unfair too - I assume Mr Grew sleeps sometimes as well!  Baz  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
C Dish
|
|
« Reply #281 on: 14:01:40, 04-02-2008 » |
|
We agree with Member Inquisitor that setting a certain number of 'open' puzzles per setter is the most reasonable strategy so as not to discourage new setters - although perhaps two per setter would cover all possible contingencies for setters other than the Inquisitor himself? (We have in mind to pose another puzzle from the singer of our currently open snatch to guide Members towards her identity while the first is still open - that would not be possible under a one-snatch-per-Member rule.)
I think one per setter would be ideal -- then for example Mr Sudden could post his clue for Puzzle 39 as a part of this very discussion thread. Somehow having over 100 puzzles within the next two weeks takes a bit of the fun out of things. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
inert fig here
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #282 on: 15:04:07, 04-02-2008 » |
|
- I assume Mr Grew sleeps sometimes as well! Baz Exactly! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #283 on: 15:28:40, 04-02-2008 » |
|
- I assume Mr Grew sleeps sometimes as well! Yes, but on the other side of the world does not he? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #284 on: 15:32:46, 04-02-2008 » |
|
- I assume Mr Grew sleeps sometimes as well! Yes, but on the other side of the world does not he? Exactly! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
