I’m listening to a live Sepultura album on MP3 just now.
Former front-man Max Cavalera just shouted to the crowd, “Do you know what time it is?”
The real answer was: “It’s time to f*** sh** up!”
I have to say that I was disappointed that he didn’t say “It’s Chico Time!“.
So … Gillette make a battery-operated, buzzy razor: the Gillette Fusion for a better shaving experience.
Oral B make a battery-operated, buzzy toothbrush: the Oral-B Pulsar for a better teeth-cleaning experience.
I can’t wait until they bring out battery-operated, buzzy Q-tips for … well, for a really weird experience in your inner ear!
I spotted a great typo on a website I was editing this morning:
The end of the document refers to many web pages, the ones used in the Guidelines being marked with an asterix. (My emphasis)
That should, of course, have read “an asterisk”. Just for the record, here’s the difference:
Which got me thinking. I think they should update these books, with titles like:
What Tintin or Asterix titles would you like to see?
Don’t you just hate it when you come in to work on a Monday morning, fire up your e-mail client and discover that over the weekend you’ve been spamming yourself!
Yesterday I received an e-mail with the subject: “January 73% OFF”. This morning I received one that offered: “January 78% OFF”.
I reckon I’ll hold out until Friday when I expect to get a whole 100% off January.
I can’t say I’m not disappointed in myself. My latest spam message is offering only “January 71% OFF”.
I think I might have blown it now. I fear that I’ve waited too long.
I may now not be the proud owner of a brand new shiny January of my own. Only time (and spam) will tell.
Well, thankfully I appear to be the only person offering reduced rates on January so the competition isn’t high. Yesterday I apparently offered myself “January 73% OFF”.
This morning it was up to “January 76% OFF”. Still nowhere near the bargain of 78% off from a couple of days ago.
Come on me. Surely I could do a better deal than that for myself. Mates’ rates and all that.
Not sure why I’ve never noticed this before. When assigning a priority to a Task within Microsoft Outlook 2003 you can click on the priority box and select from a fly-out context-menu one of three options: Low, Normal or High.
But why didn’t the developers adopt a kind of natural mapping approach to the location of these three options?
In other words why not place High at the top (because it’s higher), and Low at the bottom (because it’s lower)?
Like this:
The only reason I can think of is that they presumed that users would select Low more often than High and therefore made the Low option closer to the drop-down button, so users would have a shorter distance for their mouse to travel when selecting that option.
I never use Low, I use Normal most of the time and then occasionally highlight particularly important tasks with High. The current layout confuses me every time I use it.