[Photo editing Software]

What do people use to “sort-out” their pictures.  I’ve looked at Photoshop (at least I saw the

price and started looking away quickly). 

Then there is Adobe Lightbox – but it seems to save your edits in its

own database so once you start using it you are tied to Adobe for ever more (or

lose all of your processing !!!).  Corel

Paint Shop Pro X2 looks reasonable price wise but anybody any experience.  Then there is GIMP which is free but not

desperately convenient (in that many of the adjustment dialogs are modal so you

call them up, adjust one aspect of the pic then dismiss them and go on or back,

etc.  Also GIMP is slightly “unstructured”

as can be the case with Freeware software from many contributors – but it is

excellent value for money.

And there are probably loads I have no even considered.

I am new to this and am more interested in the results than

the package so if anybody has any experiences any comments would be greatly

appreciated.

Thank

Ian

[Eu constituition, have we all been sold down the river?]

I would expect different people to have different opinions

about the new Constitution/Treaty.  I

would expect those in favour to not want a referendum and those against to want

one.  Maybe this is where the mix in

justifications for having or not having a referendum gets confused.

Many people more qualified than myself (independent) have

said the Treaty is basically the same as the Constitution (including some

government committees which have passed judgement after studying the documents

in detail).  France and Netherlands have

already rejected this so how come their populations are not up-in-arms about

their politicians ignoring what they said previously.  Have the French and Dutch really fallen for the “it’s not the

same” story.

When the French voted against it I got the definite

impression from talking to locals here that they were doing that very French

thing and “voting strategically” – and not actually voting on the proposed

constitution but on a different issue (hence maybe not so much concern now).

However trying to ignore the is the treaty the right way

forward, a major issue seems to me that they are really pretty well the same

documents and the British people were promised a referendum (rightly or wrongly

it was promised).  Thus, for politicians

to change the name and the say it is not “the Constitution” any more is to

treat the electorate with contempt – something politicians seem to do a lot

these days.

One thing the issue has brought out is what a farce the new

Liberal leader is.  I actually had hopes

he might take their party somewhere but he seems to be just a big joke.

Ian

[Demonstration for a Referendum]

To me it seems a classic example of the low regard

politicians have for the people they represent.

It is the politicians who want this to go through –

irrespective of what the electorate might think.  I have no idea what the electorate think.  Labour promised a referendum.  That promise proved embarrassing,

particularly after it was seen how easily it can get rejected (as per e.g.

France).  So these EU politicians call

it something else and none of those who are actually affected and have either

expressed their opinions (e.g. French) 

get to have any say as they were promised.

Certainly it seems quite a few independent UK government

committees have sated that it is “principally the same document” so I can only

increase one’s cynicism of politicians when they decide they are going to just

“railroad” it through and in.

I am gradually coming to the opinion that the behaviour of

politicians these days is going to bring about a radical change to the western

system of government.  When, how quickly

and what will result I have no idea but it does seem that western politicians

are not serving their electorates well and not really representing anybody.

I actually find living in France quite interesting in that

one can watch what is happening in the UK with somewhat less of an emotional

reaction.  Were I stopped for speeding

(in France) then I would not be arrested under the anti-terrorism laws and held

for ages without trial and have my DNA taken and sold to 3^rd parties

– so I can reflect of the UK laws and politics without feeling personally threatened

or affected.

Ian

[Long Ferry crossing with dog]

[quote user="Will"]

Although there were difficulties in the earlier years of the Passport sceme, as described by the other two respondents (and particularly on the P&O Le Havre and Cherbourg routes, by all accounts), things seem to have settled down to a much more dog-friendly regime now. After all you pay a fare now to take the dog, unlike before, so you are entitled to expect something in return.

[/quote]

My "problems" with BF were last summer (2007).  Their behaviour really should mean they are stopped from carrying pets as they seem quite cpable of inhumane treatment of animals.

I will never again risk my pets on a BF boat.

Ian

[Long Ferry crossing with dog]

In my experience these days BF are not well organised for

managing pets.  Last time I travelled

with them I arrived at the port 1:30 before departure, was immediately waved

through to the loading area and they then refused to let me take my dogs out of

the car to relieve themselves before an 8 hr crossing.  By this time the dogs had been in the car

for quite a few hours and their officious people at the port were totally

unhelpful and unaware that dogs need to go to the toilet every now and again !!  (Fortunately, once we boarded the boat crew appreciated

the problems and the dogs had an exciting time finding loads of places to go to

the toiled on the boat (with BF’s boat staff permission).

My understanding is that the kennels are not used on channel

crossings but only on the trips to/from Spain. 

BF have told me about their kennels before but I have never been able to

use them on channel crossings.  However,

after my last experiences with BF I will never travel with them again with my

dogs.

If ferry companies are to be allowed to transport pets they

need to ensure their staff are aware of the needs of pets and that the staff

need to understand the word “helpful”, “cooperation”, etc.  In my experience BF fall far short of the

mark in this regard and should really not be allowed to take pets.

However, my experiences with other ferry companies is

totally different.  They seem to be able

to be helpful, provide facilities, let your dogs go to the loo, etc.  I’m sure there are some good BF staff when

it comes to pets (e.g. the boat crew in my above experience) but coming across

them seems a matter of chance – which is not good as, “catch the wrong ones” or

“catch them on a bad day” and your pet will suffer.

Ian

[Astronomy Newbie]

Also consider joining a local club.  French are quite active in Astronomy.  Check http://astrosurf.com/clubs/ any it

will tell you your local clubs (assuming you live in France).

(I’ll shut-up” now)

Ian

[Astronomy Newbie]

Another thing to consider is some planetarium software

(basically star maps on you computer).  There

are some really good Open Source and Freeware applications around.  Of course you can buy them or might have got

some free with the telescope (some manufactures do e.g. Celestron).  There are free programs around for many

platforms including Mac’s (so being non-Windoze is no excuse).  Interestingly some of the best is French

(with English versions available but written by French people) – e.g. Cartes du

Ciel.

 

I find them exceptionally useful as you can print out time

specific star maps.  A few weeks ago I

could not locate a star I had to find because I could not sort out its

constellation.  Went inside (losing

night vision), checked on my planetarium software and there was a planet in the

middle of the constellation which was messing-up the layout of everything.  Once I knew where the planet was I found it

fine.  That is something that printed

star charts (e.g. Norton’s) do not include (Planet positions).

Another thing he might find helpful from the forums is

“expectations” – what he can expect to see. 

Many beginners tend to look through their new telescopes expecting to

see beautiful red clouds, or for Jupiter’s red spot to be massive.  Some things are quite difficult to see even

when pointing the telescope directly at them. 

apart from the fact I find them boring, I have great difficulty

recognising Open Clusters.  Globular

clusters are easier (and more fun).  For

a lot of deep space stuff high magnifications are a waste of time.  You can see M31 (the Andromeda Galaxy) with

the naked eye (better and clearer and see more through a telescope at low

magnification though).

Sorry – I’ve waffled-on excessively.

Ian

[Astronomy Newbie]

http://www.popastro.com/phpBB2/index.php – is an excellent

forum.  Has many experienced people and

specific section for beginners (plus other more advanced sections, etc.)

Ian

[wheres the totty !]

Whilst it is easy to over generalise about characteristics of a nation, for what it is worth my own experiences and observations are that many French women are looking for somebody to look after them.  When you first get to meet them they are great.  However, often after a few weeks you start getting "how bad their job is" and how "badly paid they are" and "how depressing it all is" and "how little money they have", etc., etc. - basically, looking for a "father figure".

My own observations (and a massive over-generalisation) is that French women are much better looking the British women but that British women are more independent and seeking relationships on "more equal terms" (which for me is a good thing).

Please appreciate that the above is only my experience and I whilst it might appear I am making massive generalisations (which I suppose I am) - I do appreciate that such sweeping statements are enormous over-simplifications.  Also, when it comes to such generalisations I appreciate that 99% of people fall outside the "sweeping statement".

Ian

[Une maladie diplomatique]

I think it is Sarkozy rather than anything more significant.  He is doing the same to everybody.  He was due to spend a couple of nights with the Queen in the UK (dinners, meeting, etc. all arranged) but the other day decided it was "too much" and changed the booking to just the one night (which is surprising as she is very rich - probably even richer than Richard Branson and we know how he likes "hanging around" rich people").

He did something similar in Romania recently and loads of other instances - and is apparently "pissing-off" quite a few governments (and similar) in the process; though they are still being moderately "diplomatic" in their comments.

Ian

[NHS waiting times]

I would not have thought a phone call would cause any difficulty.  I could see that is somebody called and were angry, rude, abusive, etc. and then continues to call at excessively frequent intervals (i.e. pester) then maybe staff would be less than helpful.  However a polite call would not normally cause any negative impacts (maybe even some feeble excuse e.g. "my answerphone lost all its messages yesterday and I'm not sure if you might have called").

(No experience of the NHS specifically, but when an organisation publishes a telephone number they cannot be upset if people call it).

Ian

[Brittany Ferries / Junk Filter]

Brittany Ferries have probably got themselves into SPAM filters gor good reason -they send quite a bit of unsolicited mail and their "unsubscribe" does not work very well (in that you "unsubscribe" and then continue to get irrelevant and unwanted sales mails from them.

Whilst they might not be at quite the level of getting your e-mail address from dubious sources and hiding/changing the "from" address it can still be irritating, particularly when you keep unsubscribing and the messages continue.

I suspect that people have complained (or after the nth message and nth unsubscribe attempt started marking them as SPAM on their ISP systems).  To avoid having your messages flagged and handled as SPAM a bulk sender has to manage their mail lists responsibly and BF have not yet realised this.

Ian

[English Electrician?]

(Although not strictly relevant to this area of the forum), the "when was it filmed" question is very relevant.  Occasionally i catch one of these "Place in the Sun" or UK Location,... programs on e.g. Discovery (i.e. not BBC/ITV/C4 "mainstream" and am surprised by the prices.  Then one clicks that they were filmed many years ago and are now completely out of date.  Given that the programs give out specific figures (e.g. house prices, renovation costs, etc.) then I really this that the broadcaster should put the date it was filmed somewhere.  OK, not on the screen (emphasising its old or a repeat) but maybe in the program guide or somewhere.  Without the date it is just plain misleading.

Re: the guy's UK qualifications.  I'm sure that if he can get his UK qualifications he has the capabilities to manage to do the appropriate study, etc. in France to understand the requirements and standards here.  His French might be limited but some people let limited French stop them doing things whilst others just get on with life and manage and have great fun doing it.

And just think of all those people who learnt to drive in the UK under UK rules - and now they are driving in France and most of them have received no additional training, have not even read the French Code de la Route, etc.  Things differ but people can learn and I can see no reason to just assume he will "get it wrong".

Ian

[Best way of sending precious things to UK]

I would certainly not trust the post between France and UK.  No idea where so much goes astray (i.e. no idea if its France of UK where the problem lies) but I have found loads and loads of post between the 2 countries just never arrives.

Recorded deliver makes little difference - just that when it does not arrive, you can prove to them that it did not arrive - but by then you already know that.

Ian

[Archbishops comments on sharia law in UK]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

I'm sorry Deimos, but unless you are a woman I doubt you can appreciate just how it makes women feel,

[/quote]

Failure to see things from "the other side" is one major failing of our society.  Women are always going on about "how bad it is for women", etc. (maybe it is, I'm not arguing about that here) - but they fail to see the advantages they get as well (and complain when these are cut back).  for example, women have a longer life expectancy than men yet get to retire 5 years earlier !!  (Nice if you can get it - and I appreciate that at last it is being slowly changed but without affecting too many too quickly !!).

But this is a bit "off-topic".

When I say "look at and maybe incorporate the better bits" why do you assume that means "incorporate the bits that are bad for women".  You must have a very poor impression of my character to make that assumption about what I was meaning.

Ian

[Archbishops comments on sharia law in UK]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Show me one part of sharia law where a man is disadvantaged and a woman is advantaged in any way they are not already in our society..

[/quote]

He has to go out to work, be the sole breadwinner for the family, etc..  She gets to stay at home.

Ian

[Archbishops comments on sharia law in UK]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

As far as sharia law goes - then I can see nothing wrong with looking at aspects and deciding if they could or should be incorporated into British Law (for everybody).  British law is certainly not perfect and it might have some good ideas that can be adopted.  As far as I can tell the Archbishop was not proposing that women lose all rights and become subservient.  I can find no direct reference to him proposing public floggings for speeding offences, etc

What is wrong with it is that Sharia law disadvantages women - please, lets not go backward.

[/quote]

Which is my point.  From what little I know of sharia law, it covers a great deal and does not exclusively deal with how to treat women.  for example, the aspects of interest, loans and banking has little to do with women in society.  which is why I said "ASPECTS".  Men could start complaining about the way it treat men as well - but they don't as this is not what was being discussed and not what the A of C was suggesting.  All these women complaining about how sharia law treat women - please remember aspects of it treat men badly as well !!

[quote user="Russethouse"]

As far as sharia law goes - then I can see nothing wrong with looking at aspects and deciding if they could or should be incorporated into British Law (for everybody).  British law is certainly not perfect and it might have some good ideas that can be adopted.  As far as I can tell the Archbishop was not proposing that women lose all rights and become subservient.  I can find no direct reference to him proposing public floggings for speeding offences, etc

Everyone being subject to the same law is an important part of our legal system. If anyone wants to live in the UK, it goes with territory, you obey the same rules and regulations as everyone else. My feeling is that we should not encourage a 'sub' culture, especially one where treating women badly/ poorly / in any way less than equal, is acceptable.

[/quote]

If you read what I said (and what A of C also said rather than what the papers decided to turn it into) - I said "... incorporated into British law (for everybody)" - i.e. same law still applied to everybody whatever their religion.

I'm afraid I am not so arrogant to think that western society has all the answers.  I think in practice all cultures have good and bad ideas and I am not too proud to take the good ideas from other societies.  After all, if they are good ideas then everybody would benefit !!

Ian

[Archbishops comments on sharia law in UK]

Ignoring the issue about aspects of sharia law being a good idea, the thing I find so bad in all this is how the A of C's comments have been mis-quoted and people then argue about the mis-quoted versions.  Particularly bad when the mis-quoted versions give a completely different idea to the one he raised.

And the mainstream politicians did it as well.  Not just the "lower end" newspapers but all of them.  I got the "wrong end of the stick" from the BBC TV news.  One thing the incident does seem to illustrate is that the truth is no longer relevant.  I think it will be difficult for cultures like the UK to progress where everything is leapt on and people are continually being called on to resign, etc.  People will end up being to reserved to say or do anything (even really good stuff) in case some paper can mis-quote it and they would lose their job.  Everybody puts their foot in their mouth on occasions - so what.  Its human nature and we should accept that not every idea is a good one but that people have and express ideas is very very important.

As far as sharia law goes - then I can see nothing wrong with looking at aspects and deciding if they could or should be incorporated into British Law (for everybody).  British law is certainly not perfect and it might have some good ideas that can be adopted.  As far as I can tell the Archbishop was not proposing that women lose all rights and become subservient.  I can find no direct reference to him proposing public floggings for speeding offences, etc.

Ian

[New Airport Pays de la Loire]

That is a big area(Pays de la Loire).  Any ideas as to which end (e.g. Nantes or further inland).  I would suspect it would more likely be the "coastal end" and the more inland areas seem moderately well served (e.g. Tours (near Pays de la Loire), Le Mans, Angers).  Maybe the more coastal cities have airports - just I don't know them.

Ian

[Archbishops comments on sharia law in UK]

[quote user="Will"]

[quote user="Deimos"]

I agree he is a leader but he does not actually lead many these days. 

[/quote]

I disagree. The vast majority of English people were brought up in, and belong to his branch of Christianity and basically try to live according to its rules, though there are many obvious exceptions.

[/quote]

What I meant was he does not represent that many people.  Technically I am in the group you describe (brought up C of E), but there is no way I consider him a "leader".  In fact, whilst many might put C of E on official forms (where it means nothing), few are actually participants in his group.  In fact, thinking about it I don't know anybody how would describe themselves as religious and nobody who goes to any C of E church services.  It appears to me as something of a group in decline.  It might be traditional and the royal family might participate but the participate in a lot of things.

Ian

[Archbishops comments on sharia law in UK]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

He is a leader in a sensitive position, during a time of significant crisis in British society.

As a such a leader he ought to be extremely careful in what he states, since quite obviously, any comment on matters relating to social diversity, multiculturalism and Islam will be bound to be picked up by the ever-fevered media and misquoted as an attention getting soundbite.

[/quote]

In the scale of "sensitive issues" there are far more serious "transgressions".  For example, when a leader of a major religious group condemns millions to death just because of his church's dogma (thinking here about the Pope telling everybody they cannot use a condom and get into heaven - in fact in many countries, not using a condom will speed ones route to heaven).  Things like that are outrageous.

I agree he is a leader but he does not actually lead many these days.  Were it somebody like Gordon saying what he intended to do I can appreciate there might be a bit of an outcry.  My own impression is that if the UK is to survive the current social diversity it needs to be able to have issues raised by people without such a ludicrous reaction.  If people cannot consider things, discuss them, agree or disagree with them then I cannot see much hope for the future.

I don't know much about Sharia law (probably not even how to spell it), but I think it must be beneficial for people to look at it, identify the good bits and ideas and see how they might improve the existing legal system.  Certainly the current UK laws are not perfect and maybe there are one or two (or more) aspects to Sharia that could improve the existing system (for everybody) - sort of take the best of both worlds.  Seems though people cannot even mention it.

Ian

[Archbishops comments on sharia law in UK]

These days I'm pretty anti-religion in general.  In theory it could be a massive benefit to society (any/many of them).  However in practice they fall far short of achieving anything useful.

What the Archbishop said was not offensive, rude, did not try to incite racial hatred, did not do loads of things.  His comments were quite legal, decent, etc.  So why the "outcry".  Just because people stretch what he said a bit and don't agree with it why all the calls for his resignation.

Even if he was "wrong" - so what.  Just because somebody says something that is "wrong" (but harmless) no cause for them to resign.  Maybe if people came up with some valid debatable comments or facts that present the other side of the argument them he might reconsider and modify his opinions.  But all they can do is comment on him "being better suited to academia" (i.e. no good at his job) and that he should resign.

I don't agree with lots of things lots of people say but am quite happy for them to say them.  sometimes I even listen to the points they raise and find myself changing my own attitudes.  God forbid that anybody that says something others don't agree with should lose their jobs, etc.

For me the major disappointment in this incident is the reaction of "the population" (or press ?), not his comments (which I strongly disagree with - but that is not very relevant).

Ian

[Gas bottles in cave sous sol?]

[quote user="La Guerriere"]n a cellar the gas would just accumulate at the bottom until you drop a fag end or create a spark, [/quote]

e.g. by switching on a light.

Ian

[farmers cutting branches off trees]

I have found "the commune" (or in my case the DDE as they do the work) to be pretty cooperative.  For example, last autumn they were tiding up around the river banks beside the road (cutting back self-set trees, etc.).  I was chatting to them and they noticed I had a couple of old cut trees re-sprouting on the bits on the river close to my house and definitely on my land and my responsibility and not even close to their land/responsibility.  The asked if I would like them to cut them back whilst they were doing the work.  they cut them and removed the waste just sort of "being friendly".

Maybe the cooperative attitudes one can experience can give one a false impression about whose responsibility things actually are.

Ian

[Risks of Living]

[quote user="sweet 17"]

Deimos says

I hope this attitude goes away soon.

That is highly unlikely, Deimos.  Is it my imagination or are people getting greedier and more litigious?

[/quote]

I wonder if it is the changes that allow people to sue for compensation that make is such a good way to get rich quick (i.e. quicker than working for it).  I guess it is a difficult balance as there are bound to be cases where compensation is rightly due.  Trouble is how to exclude those who basically "deserve nothing" - 'cos my opinion of each case would not count for much.

I question this "No Win, No Fee" system as I suspect it might encourage people to sue when there is really no case.  However, on the other side of the coin, the layers are only likely to take those cases where they are likely to win.  If they take too many "No wins" they end up with loads of work and "No fees".  I assume most of these people are looking to settle with an insurance company "out-of-court".

Maybe if there were some system whereby if somebody sues and their case is deemed to by "money grabbing" (e.g. by a magistrate or judge or somebody independent", then the individual has to pay some significant fine (basically something to pass a degree of risk to the private individual).  I like to think I would not pursue such claims as I am generally keen to get on with my life (too much to do and too little time to do it in and certainly no time to waste on such daft activities).  You can see how some people faced with a "no risk" i.e. to some "get between 0 and loads of cash" is a no brainer.  Change that to get between - a significant number to plus a reasonable number and they might think twice about their case.

Again, UK is so PC these days I suspect that all is lost for any sanity in such matters.

I must confess to not knowing much about the French system but I do have the impression it is less  "opportunistic".  I have the (maybe incorrect) impression that whilst they might need to attribute blame more than UK/US, the compensation is more restricted and generally has to show a real loss.  Thus, have to be off work for a week recovering and in the UK you might expect £100 000 because you were uncomfortable whereas in France you might get 5 days pay as that is what you actually lost (and maybe a few medical bills is appropriate) - expect little or nothing to make-up for the discomfort.

Ian