RE: Lakes Weather Line



On 20 Jan 2005 08:04:22 -0800, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> JeffC wrote:
>> The best site for weather forecasts (in my opinion) is metcheck.
>
>Agree - 100%
>
>MetCheck in combination with MWIS is a winner.
>
>[I hope MetCheck is right as after next Monday the following couple of
>weeks look relatively dry and settled for Cumbria]

Weeks ? In weather terms, isn't that like forecasting the next set of
lottery numbers ?

I use MWIS frequently, but sadly I notice the Peak District forecast is down
to weekends-only.

--
The plural of spouse is spice.

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
John Laird wrote:

>>[I hope MetCheck is right as after next Monday the following couple of
>>weeks look relatively dry and settled for Cumbria]
>
> Weeks ? In weather terms, isn't that like forecasting the next set of
> lottery numbers ?

Last night Metcheck were forecasting 20mm of rain on Saturday morning for my
bit of the South-East, and I was seriously reconsidering my walking plans.
This morning Saturday's forecast was for clear skies all day!
--
Dave
 
The message <[email protected]>
from Dave Pickles <[email protected]> contains these words:

> Last night Metcheck were forecasting 20mm of rain on Saturday morning for my
> bit of the South-East, and I was seriously reconsidering my walking plans.
> This morning Saturday's forecast was for clear skies all day!

Metcheck did something similar for The Lakes which had very nearly
persuaded me to go walking on Friday and accept the mizzle as it was the
best I could hope for this week. But the tune has radically changed. All
I need to worry about on Saturday is the cold.

The local TV (BBC) forecast hear in Yorkshire is at odds with the
National Weather so I suspect that the entrails are particularly
difficult to interpret atm.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 5 summits
New - 5 (Marilyns 0, Sweats 0, Outlying Fells 5)
Repeats - 0 (Marilyns 0, Sweats 0, Wainwrights 0, Outlying Fells 0)
 
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:33:18 +0000, Phil Cook
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Yep It's a "National Rate" dialing code. So it isn't going to cost any
>more.

er, yes it is if you phone it from the Lake District, where it used to
be local, obviously. So over twice as much. And it used to be 20p
from a phone box.

--
York Alpine Club - http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
Recent Photos - http://climbing.me.uk
Old Photos - http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
My Brother's Photos - http://www.caldwellcreations.co.uk
 
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:24:13 +0000, Dominic Sexton
<{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Geoff Berrow
><[email protected]> writes
>>I noticed that Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>>from Phil Cook contained the following:
>>
>>>
>>>Or a text editor like TextPad http://www.textpad.com/ that can edit
>>>across multiple documents.
>>Interesting. I didn't know that.
>>
>
>As can Ultraedit http://www.ultraedit.com/
>
>Having had a trial with both I went for Ultraedit because it can
>seamlessly switch between hex and text modes (not an issue for most
>users) and it comes with an excellent file compare utility.
>
>For the coders it also does some dandy tricks like highlighting the
>open/close brackets when you click on the other of the pair - makes
>finding errors easier.
>
>Would recommend anybody interested in a top-notch editor to try both and
>see which fits their needs best. The prices are not far apart (UE wee
>bit more expensive).

I use Ultraedit too. Recently I found the DOCTYPE and META CONTENT of
all the pages on my website were out of date. I changed the top four
lines of 750 pages with one simple search and replace instruction.

John D.
--
at home in Kendal, Cumbria
Lake District Walks at: http://www.lakedistrictwalks.com/
Kilimanjaro trip at: http://www.lakedistrictwalks.com/kilimanjaro/
 
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:32:22 +0000, Simon Caldwell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:33:18 +0000, Phil Cook
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yep It's a "National Rate" dialing code. So it isn't going to cost any
>>more.
>
>er, yes it is if you phone it from the Lake District, where it used to
>be local, obviously. So over twice as much.

You obviously need to do some detective work to identify the actual delivery
number to which the "non-geographic" 0870 number is routed. My belief is
that the customer won't know which you dialled, except they will get no cut
from the local version.

If it's a service that costs money to provide, and morally you agree that
everyone should pay, then these 0870 or 0845 numbers ensure that all callers
pay the same. Which seems fair. The whole notion of "local" and "national"
is a complete nonsense now, though. Alternative providers have dropped the
idea, apart from the non-geographic stuff. I am with TalkTalk who charge
2.7p/min peak time for anywhere. 0870 is 7.5p, 0845 4.5p. They are a way
of paying for a service. I don't mind as long as I'm not paying to be on
hold for half an hour or spending 5 minutes getting through tone-driven
menus.

--
Name me one nation that taxed itself into prosperity.

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:52:43 +0000, Dave Pickles <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Laird wrote:
>
>>>[I hope MetCheck is right as after next Monday the following couple of
>>>weeks look relatively dry and settled for Cumbria]
>>
>> Weeks ? In weather terms, isn't that like forecasting the next set of
>> lottery numbers ?
>
>Last night Metcheck were forecasting 20mm of rain on Saturday morning for my
>bit of the South-East, and I was seriously reconsidering my walking plans.
>This morning Saturday's forecast was for clear skies all day!

Here in Manchester it has rained absolutely all day long, so I for one am
hoping for a respite soon. Our local freesheet, who are pretty reliable,
say more heavy rain on Saturday but not much Friday or Sunday. That's the
sort of forecast that puts me off making plans, as very often systems fail
to arrive on time (they're usually late).

Metcheck are.... (goes off to look)

Completely at odds ! They reckon rain tomorrow, with daytime temperatures
peaking at 4C, down to just 1C over the weekend. The paper (who I'm fairly
sure get their info from the local Met Office) have 10C, 9C, 6C. The Met
Office themselves reckon it'll be pretty cold. It'll be interesting to see
how it turns out.

--
Tagline being sued by Lotus for look and feel violation.

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
Following up to sandy saunders

>Just had to update 70 pages of my website ...... phew, what a job! Serves
>me right for having the number on each walk page.

I did something like that with my email address, then found it
caused spam and had to change every page :-(
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to John Laird

>I really ought to know more html than I do, but surely there are (supported)
>ways of specifying a particular item of content on multiple pages, but with
>one "source" ? Or is this the sort of problem that the dreaded frames
>address ?

html is fairly simple, I suspect you cannot. I just make a link
to a seperate page from all pages, then put the common data on
that single page.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Phil Cook

>Or a text editor like TextPad http://www.textpad.com/ that can edit
>across multiple documents.

sounds useful.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
In article <[email protected]>, The Reids
<[email protected]> writes
>Following up to John Laird
>
>>I really ought to know more html than I do, but surely there are (supported)
>>ways of specifying a particular item of content on multiple pages, but with
>>one "source" ? Or is this the sort of problem that the dreaded frames
>>address ?
>
>html is fairly simple, I suspect you cannot. I just make a link
>to a seperate page from all pages, then put the common data on
>that single page.

It depends upon the server. If the server has PHP or allows Server Side
Includes (SSI) you can use either of those to include a file in another.
Great for navigation menus and static data.

Some of the cheaper hosting accounts will not have these options :-( but
many do :))

--

Dominic Sexton
 
The Reids wrote:

>>I really ought to know more html than I do, but surely there are (supported)
>>ways of specifying a particular item of content on multiple pages, but with
>>one "source" ? Or is this the sort of problem that the dreaded frames
>>address ?
>
> html is fairly simple, I suspect you cannot. I just make a link
> to a seperate page from all pages, then put the common data on
> that single page.

Depending on your ISP, you may have some sort of SSI (Server Side
Includes) facility available to you. This enables you to put common
content in a file and then include it in the pages where you want it
displayed. See http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/Server_Side_Include.html
for a brief overview, then google for "server side include" for more detail.

Your particular ISP is using Apache as your webserver, and the Apache
tutorial for SSI can be found at
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/howto/ssi.html, your ISP should be able to
tell you if you are allowed to turn on SSI, and how to do so if you are
allowed.

--
Alan Burlison
--
 
In article <[email protected]>, John Laird
<[email protected]> wrote on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 at 22:52:34:
>You obviously need to do some detective work to identify the actual delivery
>number to which the "non-geographic" 0870 number is routed.
Many phone providers apply higher charges to 0845, 0870 or 0871
telephone numbers than standard telephone numbers (those beginning with
01 or 02). If you have an 'inclusive landline calls' phone package, then
it is very rare that 0870, 0871 or 0845 numbers are included in your
'free minutes' allocation, unlike normal numbers.

Many companies advertise a separate number that can be used when calling
from abroad - This usually begins in the format +44 - There is nothing
to stop you using this number from the UK (as it is a normal rate
telephone call).

The website http://www.saynoto0870.com/ lists many organisations that
use 0845, 0870 or 0871 numbers and the equivalent standard telephone
numbers (those beginning with 01 or 02). In some cases it also lists
0800 numbers which route to the same number as an 0870, 0871 or 0845
number - saving even more money.

>My belief is
>that the customer won't know which you dialled, except they will get no cut
>from the local version.
Correct.
 
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:16:20 +0000, Tom B <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Many companies advertise a separate number that can be used when calling
>from abroad - This usually begins in the format +44 - There is nothing
>to stop you using this number from the UK (as it is a normal rate
>telephone call).

That's very interesting. I avoid using the mobile for 08xx numbers
because I get charged for them (even 0800). I just looked at a few
company letterheads, and henceforth I will be using their 'from
abroad' numbers.
Good man!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:01:16 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:16:20 +0000, Tom B <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Many companies advertise a separate number that can be used when calling
>>from abroad - This usually begins in the format +44 - There is nothing
>>to stop you using this number from the UK (as it is a normal rate
>>telephone call).
>
>That's very interesting. I avoid using the mobile for 08xx numbers
>because I get charged for them (even 0800). I just looked at a few
>company letterheads, and henceforth I will be using their 'from
>abroad' numbers.
>Good man!

I am mostly in agreement with you, but I would make an exception for those
numbers which are providing a service to me, and for which I would be quite
happy to pay if some means of payment could be devised. These 0870 numbers
do provide such a mechanism. However, far too often they are used as a way
of quietly fleecing callers. I particularly object to organisations who
woefully understaff their call centres so you have to sit on hold for ages,
or who set up ridiculously complex tone-driven menu systems which also
prolong each call.

For all their faults, BT are a shining counter-example. Just about
everything is handled through 0800 numbers, and if you get held up in the
fault reporting system, it offers automated ways of requesting callbacks
from humans. And they do it, too.

--
We have standards and expect you not to exceed them.

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:38:28 +0000, John Laird
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:01:16 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:16:20 +0000, Tom B <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Many companies advertise a separate number that can be used when calling
>>>from abroad - This usually begins in the format +44 - There is nothing
>>>to stop you using this number from the UK (as it is a normal rate
>>>telephone call).
>>
>>That's very interesting. I avoid using the mobile for 08xx numbers
>>because I get charged for them (even 0800). I just looked at a few
>>company letterheads, and henceforth I will be using their 'from
>>abroad' numbers.
>>Good man!
>
>I am mostly in agreement with you, but I would make an exception for those
>numbers which are providing a service to me, and for which I would be quite
>happy to pay if some means of payment could be devised. These 0870 numbers
>do provide such a mechanism. However, far too often they are used as a way
>of quietly fleecing callers. I particularly object to organisations who
>woefully understaff their call centres so you have to sit on hold for ages,
>or who set up ridiculously complex tone-driven menu systems which also
>prolong each call.
>
>For all their faults, BT are a shining counter-example. Just about
>everything is handled through 0800 numbers, and if you get held up in the
>fault reporting system, it offers automated ways of requesting callbacks
>from humans. And they do it, too.


Well, I'm still paying of course, but my inclusive minutes (contract
mobile) don't include 08xx numbers, so I'd have to pay twice over!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:47:10 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

>Well, I'm still paying of course, but my inclusive minutes (contract
>mobile) don't include 08xx numbers, so I'd have to pay twice over!

There is a flaw in your logic. Those minutes could be used to make other
calls, which would then be free. So you're only paying once, assuming you
do use up all of your free minutes.

Mean though I am, I routinely call the traffic line on my mobile during long
journeys, at 50p/min or whatever. I figure it is worth that to me to be
pre-warned of problems, or to know the roads are clear.

What do you reckon a call to the Weather Line costs you ?

--
The future isn't what it used to be...

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:24:55 +0000, John Laird
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:47:10 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Well, I'm still paying of course, but my inclusive minutes (contract
>>mobile) don't include 08xx numbers, so I'd have to pay twice over!
>
>There is a flaw in your logic. Those minutes could be used to make other
>calls, which would then be free. So you're only paying once, assuming you
>do use up all of your free minutes.

I never use up my minutes. I am not a woman.
>
>Mean though I am, I routinely call the traffic line on my mobile during long
>journeys, at 50p/min or whatever. I figure it is worth that to me to be
>pre-warned of problems, or to know the roads are clear.
>
>What do you reckon a call to the Weather Line costs you ?

Since *all* weather forecast are ime a pile of cr*p, and it's better
to look out of the window to see what might be coming, I never use it.
I have only ever once phoned it - yesterday, about 5pm, to see what it
was like. After a few minutes giving me an utterly useless Friday's
forecast it announced that Saturday's forecast would not be available
until after 5.30!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:52:34 +0000, John Laird
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>You obviously need to do some detective work to identify the actual delivery
>number to which the "non-geographic" 0870 number is routed. My belief is
>that the customer won't know which you dialled, except they will get no cut
>from the local version.

I don't need to do any detective work, all I was pointing out was that
there has been a price increase of over 100%. Which may or may not be
justifiable - FWIW I think it probably is, at least it's not a premium
rate number. But I shan't be using the service as it's accuracy is
not high enough to justify (to me) the increased price.
For instance, they were saying yesterday that there were large
accumulations of snow above 800m and ice axe/crampons were essential -
sounds like the new Helvellyn weather forecast man had a hangover on
Saturday, couldn't be bothered getting out of bed, and guessed.

S.
--
York Alpine Club - http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
Recent Photos - http://climbing.me.uk
Old Photos - http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
My Brother's Photos - http://www.caldwellcreations.co.uk
 
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:24:55 +0000, John Laird
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>There is a flaw in your logic. Those minutes could be used to make other
>calls, which would then be free. So you're only paying once, assuming you
>do use up all of your free minutes.

To use up my free minutes I'd have to be on the phone for 14 hours
every day between 7pm and 7am!

--
York Alpine Club - http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
Recent Photos - http://climbing.me.uk
Old Photos - http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
My Brother's Photos - http://www.caldwellcreations.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back