Sunday, 12 January 2003
lj_maintenance
Sunday, 12 January 2003 04:54I read about
lj_maintenance recently -- "the journal for announcing planned LiveJournal downtime and maintenance and for explaining unplanned downtime after it happens". Sounds useful.
(no subject)
Sunday, 12 January 2003 06:33Edit: please see also my status poll (or see this entry).
Edit 2: Answers are here.
This was inspired by a poll in
jerzeegrrl's journal.
I wonder what kind of picture you have of me -- how old or tall do you imagine me to be, and so on. (I suppose you could cheat since my birthday is in my userinfo, but I'd prefer to see what you think is my age, based on your perception of me.)
(I don't think anyone I know in RL will see this, so it'll be interesting what your perception is. Also, none of my userpics looks anything like me.)
To get a rough estimate for centimetre-to-inch, take centimetres and multiply by four then divide by ten; to go from kg-to-lb, multiply by 2.2 (or multiply by 2 then add 10%). 162 cm = 64" (5'4") and 200 cm = 79" (6'7"); 62 kg = 137 lb and 100 kg = 220 lb.
[Poll #91125]
Edit 2: Answers are here.
This was inspired by a poll in
I wonder what kind of picture you have of me -- how old or tall do you imagine me to be, and so on. (I suppose you could cheat since my birthday is in my userinfo, but I'd prefer to see what you think is my age, based on your perception of me.)
(I don't think anyone I know in RL will see this, so it'll be interesting what your perception is. Also, none of my userpics looks anything like me.)
To get a rough estimate for centimetre-to-inch, take centimetres and multiply by four then divide by ten; to go from kg-to-lb, multiply by 2.2 (or multiply by 2 then add 10%). 162 cm = 64" (5'4") and 200 cm = 79" (6'7"); 62 kg = 137 lb and 100 kg = 220 lb.
[Poll #91125]
Another one
Sunday, 12 January 2003 08:04I had forgotten to ask these questions, but I'd interested to see what you think.
Edit: Answers are here.
[Poll #91149]
Edit: Answers are here.
[Poll #91149]
Walking on the ice
Sunday, 12 January 2003 18:17(Rats, DNS is acting up and I can't get to a bunch of sites including Google.)
The past few days have seen sub-zero temperatures and so the lake near here froze over. The other day, the local rag said that the ice needed to be 20 cm thick for them to allow people on and that they had measured 19.5 cm.
Today, Stella and I went to have a look. The ice was indeed thick enough that lots of people were on the lake. At the south end, there weren't that many but towards the north end it got really crowded. There were booths set up on the ice selling mulled wine, sausages, and other things. In a couple of places, the snow had been cleared away and people were playing ice-hockey or just skated. There were also several places where a longish strip of ice was laid bare and people (especially children) had fun sliding on the exposed ice. Lots of sleds everywhere with fathers pulling children. Also a fair number of prams.
Whee! I can't remember having walked on a frozen lake before. It was fun. Pity we didn't think to bring our camera.
The past few days have seen sub-zero temperatures and so the lake near here froze over. The other day, the local rag said that the ice needed to be 20 cm thick for them to allow people on and that they had measured 19.5 cm.
Today, Stella and I went to have a look. The ice was indeed thick enough that lots of people were on the lake. At the south end, there weren't that many but towards the north end it got really crowded. There were booths set up on the ice selling mulled wine, sausages, and other things. In a couple of places, the snow had been cleared away and people were playing ice-hockey or just skated. There were also several places where a longish strip of ice was laid bare and people (especially children) had fun sliding on the exposed ice. Lots of sleds everywhere with fathers pulling children. Also a fair number of prams.
Whee! I can't remember having walked on a frozen lake before. It was fun. Pity we didn't think to bring our camera.