Gravy…

And some English mustard.

Hey… I'm also trying to work here!!

Right… the HDMI interface is designed to allow a certain error rate to occur and still work perfectly. There is enough error correction data supplied in the rest of the data that the erroneous bits can be corrected or ignored.

However, once you go over a certain error rate then the error correction cannot handle it and the whole thing grinds to a halt and you get a very distorted picture, or no picture at all. This is called the Cliff Effect.

The difference that a better quality cable will make is to allow you to use longer cable lengths before the error rate gets such that the picture dies entirely.

So yes, there will be less errors on a better quality cable, but this won't make any difference until you reach the threshold that stops a picture being shown at all!

So, if you use a cheap cable and get a picture, an expensive cable won't do anything different.

If you have a longer cable run, and a cheap cable gives you garbage, an expensive one might be able to give you a picture.

Simples…

Hmmm… Fermat's Last Theorem… that should be easy, after all, I have a book around here that tells me how to do it…

What could be so difficult?

It doesn't even work if x=0…

So nope, no integer solutions…

geoff… isn't what the police are doing easier for you? They are saying, here is the incident number, give that to the insurance company, and the matter is then closed.

Why does knowing the details of the other party make any difference to you in the slightest?

If the details are subsequently lost (why would they be?), then you most likely have a claim against the Police, or more likely, your insurance company will have.

Recently I have hit my head on the following things:-

loft ladder
bed frame
car boot
cooker extractor hood

Amazingly I also managed to ride my bike several times and not hit my head on anything.

Actually, maybe I should just wear a helmet all the time instead!

Hold on… risk compensation means you take more risks because you feel better protected…

Well, surely mountain biking is a perfect example of this. I know I have been out riding my bike sans helmet and come across something I won't ride without a helmet… and since gone back and ridden it with helmet on.

And I know I ride a damn sight faster and more techy stuff when lidded up. I actually reckon I am probably far more likely to do myself a nasty when I'm riding with a helmet on than when I am not.

Is that not risk compensation in action?

:D

rkk… so the fatuous ones are just those you disagree with then! :wink:

Just out of interest, does anyone know the helmet wearing rates for places like Holland and Denmark? Last time I was in Denmark there were bikes everywhere and no-one wearing helmets… has this changed at all?

rkk… if someone had tripped, fallen and hit their head while walking, would you now be wearing a helmet walking down the street? If not, why not if as you say all the risk management arguments are fatuous…

robdob… what is actually wrong with assessing the risk of something before doing it, and then choosing whether to do it or not based on that assessment? You seem to have some problem with this…

PP… I know you did.. :-)

And you are right, taking the easy line is rarely what we are looking for in this sport. But, and there was always going to be one of those wasn't there, why is that increase of risk acceptable, but choosing to go for a pootle without a helmet not?

For example, who is more likely to have an accident? Someone riding to the shops on a cycle path, or someone riding the trails at a trail centre?

If it's selfish to ride to the shops without a lid, then surely it is even more so to ride a trail centre…

PP… if you are going to use the H&S angle, shouldn't you also do as you say and make sure the route is as safe as possible? In which case you'll be riding along the flatest, easiest route.

But nobody on here ever really does that, they, like you and I, look for the 'fun' trails to ride. So why is it acceptable for us to take that particular risk, but not to take a risk of not using a helmet on a flat ride?

Serious question as I wasn't riding before helmets became deemed necessary, but was there a big problem with a lot of head injuries amongst mountain bikers prior to the majority using them?

But then, it's never going to be sorted out and it'll always be a contentious issue with ingrained camps on both sides, just look at how long the helmet debate has raged within the climbing community, and shows no sign of abating there either!

mike… never fear, I'll be finding even more niche cheese to bring… and whisky, if only to see the look on Sheldons face as he tries it!

Homer… Homer… Homer… Homer…

Oh, and I love mine… it's a HL, but would be happy with any of them, and would buy another in a shot.

Have a try here…

http://www.cottageguide.co.uk/crummockcottages/%5B/url%5D

Me and the other half were looking for somewhere about this time of year last year and it was recommended to us… and we liked it so much we are going back for a week again this year.

It's close to a pub too, the Kirkstile Inn, which is fantastic!

They are warm to ride in, but I do find I tend to ride in mine a fair bit in late autumn/winter/early spring, but that is about half the year! You do sweat a little more than you usually do on some rides, due to the way the material works, but you don't end up any wetter, and sometimes drier, than if you had been wearing any other waterproof… and I'm a sweaty bugger too!

It's definitely for the cooler/colder days though.

Surely the mezze platter would have loads of olive oil everywhere, which if someone is avoiding fat could be an issue…

At a guess they are taking those fat-loss tablets, so bad things could happen if they eat much fat!

I knew I had read it somewhere… it just took a bit of finding!

I haven't even got the voucher… so think yourself lucky!

But I think the £80 spend is similar to their previous voucher, and although maybe a little cheeky about not letting you use the money in your account, I understand you can ask for that back at any time. But I guess the idea behind the voucher is to make people spend more, above the money they have already saved into their NW accounts…

Have a look here…

It says:-

Q. Can I put some of my own money towards a more expensive bike than £1,000 if the employer does not have a consumer credit licence?

A. No as this would mean shared ownership and no tax exemption would apply.

rkk01… but a company with a consumer credit license issuing vouchers for more than £1000 is not topping up, it is just giving out higher value vouchers for which you recieve the tax exemption on the whole amount.

Whereas, if you could top up a £1000 voucher with your own cash, you would only be getting the tax exemption on the £1000 part, and not on the total value. If you then got the tax exemption on the whole amount then I would suspect this is tax evasion or some such thing that would be rather frowned upon even more by HMRC!

So, even if you could top up the amount, I would suspect it only really works for relatively small additions as you will more than likely be paying book price for the kit… whereas if you paid in cash you'd likely get a lot better price. For example:-

For £1k vouchers you'd pay back about £650ish after buying the bike from your employer at the end.

For £2k, £1k voucher, £1k cash top up, you'd be paying a total of £1650ish back… that halves the % discount you get from the tax break, and brings it into line with what you could have got the bike for cash.

Above that it gets less and less % discount…

rkk01… it's because you are not buying the bike. You are choosing a bike that you are then going to hire from your employer for a year at a set rate. At the end of this period the employer can then decide to sell you the bike at a 'fair market value', but they can also decide to keep the bike and sell it themselves, or do whatever they want with it.

It is only in this manner which you qualify for the tax exemption. If you pay for any part of the bike then you are no longer purely hiring the bike, and then it becomes a hire-purchase scheme which is not tax exempt.

Of course, in general no employer is going to want to keep all the bikes, and so you'd be very unlikely not to be offered the bike at the end of the year, but it's in no way guarenteed.

Quite what happens with accessories I am not sure though… are you just hiring the shoes and clothes you buy as well?

samuri/pook/etc… surely that goes both ways though doesn't it? The companies who are doing things that cause their employees to go on strike must be well aware of that too, and yet they still go ahead and do it, knowing that it will cause the workers to go out on strike.

Laying all that responsibility on the striking workers kinda assumes that the company is always right…

bananaworld… according to the rules you are not supposed to be allowed to top up the value of the voucher, although just as crazy-legs says for buying frame/forks, some shops will allow you to do this.

For cold and wet weather I'd go with my Paramo Velez smock every time… and I'm rather liking the look of their new Quinto jacket too, but I might have to save up for that.

And some do a bit of both… like Alliance and Leicester will do a fast transfer for amounts up to £30, but it takes 3 days for anything above that.

I'm gonna be getting one from here…

And then sticking a gert big lock on it.

If you are worried, take the shock out, compress the suspension fully and then set the height of the front mech, in position for the granny ring, so that it just misses the chain stay…

Simples…

Aristotle.. the point I was trying to make is that while superficially the argument about indigenous peoples might look reasonable to some people, ultimately it's just way for the BNP to try and cover over their racist policies.

BigDummy… isn't the point though with places like the Americas, Australia and New Zealand that the indigenous people there remained relatively isolated from the 'known' world for many thousands of years, and so developed distinct ethnic types… and then us whiteys turned up and invaded their countries and gave them a pretty raw deal all round, and now they are minorities in their countries and still not getting that great a deal mostly…

Whereas in the UK, we've been part of the 'known' world for thousands of years, and over that time there have been countless invasions and various waves of immigration to the extent that if there ever had been a seperate indigenous people here, who were somehow different to those who chose to settle on the other side of the channel, they have been mingled with other peoples during our history to such an extent that it is not possible to define who those indigenous are.

The only possible defining characteristic that one could say with any form of certainty would be the colour of their skin.

Especially designed not to mess your hair up?

But if the cupboard is full of mugs, then the dust will settle mostly on the mug bases, and not on the cupboard shelf anyway…

Or just file the nuts down…

Yep, did exactly that and it work's just fine.

Oh, and am not using a chain device.

I'm running a HL 5 Spot with a double and bash, and have had to leave the front mech where it was when it was a triple to stop the chainstay crashing into the mech cage at full compression…

If you have a search on MTBR there was some info on this about a few years ago…

Surely the power supply in a component should be at the same quality as the rest of the component, otherwise it's just been badly designed…

So I guess if a hi-fi needs mains filtering then it's an admission that it is badly designed? :wink:

Designing a power supply for something like this, that needs a clean mains feed is simply bad power supply design, all the filtering it needs should be built into its input filters, and if the outputs need to be that precisely regulated, then that should be taken care of as well by the design…

The only reason for not having good power supplies is due to companies wanting to keep their costs down, but for kit that is already costing hundreds/thousands it's a bit crap if they can't put in the proper filtering on cost grounds…

cynic-al… I don't think anyone is questioning that spending money on well chosen hi-fi equipment won't make a difference to how it sounds, more that people are questioning whether such things as a mains filters, or in the other thread different cables, really do make the differences that are ascribed to them…

Is this another one of those things which is not measurable, but can still be heard?

And while mains filters are very real things, which do filter the mains, the question remains as to whether this makes any difference at all to a hi-fi plugged into a domestic mains socket.

Unless of course the equipment designers are being really sneaky and putting really bad power supplies in their kit, that are affected by the normal levels of distortion/noise on a mains feed, so that people then have to go out and buy 'mains cleaners'.

Oh and bugger… I find myself agreeing with SFB again… and I don't like doing that! :wink:

I was thinking of getting some diving drysuit cuffs for just this problem, but then someone on here pointed out you can do the same thing with cut-down Marigolds… although you would have to have pink or yellow… unless you can find black washing up gloves!