>
>
> http://failblog.org/2011/06/20/epic-fail-photos-fire-safety-fail-2/
>

I think that the green wall was a later addition and that at the time of 
the installation of the fire extinguisher, there was no problem at all 
with its location.  Unfortunately, the guys who put up the drywall were 
not asked to move the fire extinguisher, and just like the fence going 
through the goal posts, it fell under the "not-my-problem" category.



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2011 02:41 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:

>>
>>
>> http://failblog.org/2011/06/20/epic-fail-photos-fire-safety-fail-2/
>>
>
> I think that the green wall was a later addition and that at the time of
> the installation of the fire extinguisher, there was no problem at all
> with its location. Unfortunately, the guys who put up the drywall were
> not asked to move the fire extinguisher, and just like the fence going
> through the goal posts, it fell under the "not-my-problem" category.

Yeah, probably something like that. Still, even without the wall there, 
that's a hell of a long way off the ground. How was it ever reachable?

And I still can't figure out how you could build a fence through a goal 
mouth and not realise. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 7/8/2011 7:19, Invisible wrote:
> Yeah, probably something like that. Still, even without the wall there,
> that's a hell of a long way off the ground. How was it ever reachable?

It looks like it's a second-floor walkway. The left side of the picture 
shows a railing, and the right side has a wall for whatever reason. I'm 
guessing the second floor was open, with railings, and then they put an 
"office" on the second floor by walling in some of the previously-open space.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:54:20 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> A great deal of what's on fail blog isn't fail at all. But they have
>>> to keep up now, so ...
>>
>> More and more of it seems to be repeats lately, too.
> 
> I eventually stopped following one of the lolcat sites due to the
> extreme level of advertising, and the generally diminishing amusement
> value.

I've been getting tired of the video ads - 15-30 second ad, followed by 5 
second fail, repeated 3 times, more slowly each time, followed by 10 
second "Failblog" postscript.  Oh, and it's usually the same damned ad 
each time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> On 08/07/2011 08:55 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> I eventually stopped following one of the lolcat sites due to the
>>> extreme level of advertising, and the generally diminishing amusement
>>> value.
>>
>> Just use AdBlock Plus. It's surprisingly effective (it can remove ads
>> even
>> from flash videos).
>
> By "extreme level of advertising", I mean "each page takes 45 seconds to
> load, and a further 30 seconds to finish layout".
>
> Still, perhaps AdBlock can fix it. I don't know, I've never used it.
> (Come to think of it, I don't even know where to obtain it. But that can
> be fixed...)
>
> The other reason was that the pictures steadily increased in volume, but
> the actually amusing ones became rarer and rarer...

AdBlock actualy prevent the ads from even starting to load.
It's realy a "Can't live without" addon.

I red reports about sites that suposedly took over a minute to load even 
on extreme speed broadband. Those sites only took seconds to load on my 
side. Peoples complained a LOT about the adds content of those sites, 
while I never was aware that there was even a single add...
There was also floods of complains about dozens of popups when entering 
and leaving the pages, popups that I never ever saw :)

Once, I received a link to a "trap" site. It contained a nifty java 
script looking like:
on_entry popup URL
on_entry popup URL
on_exit popup URL
on_exit popup URL

Where URL was the URL of the current page.

For me, it was a non-event.

Post a reply to this message

Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> I red reports about sites that suposedly took over a minute to load even 
> on extreme speed broadband. Those sites only took seconds to load on my 
> side. Peoples complained a LOT about the adds content of those sites, 
> while I never was aware that there was even a single add...
> There was also floods of complains about dozens of popups when entering 
> and leaving the pages, popups that I never ever saw :)

  It's also amusing to read comments on videos at certain video sites
complaining about the constantly appearing ads *during the video*. Ads
which I have never seen.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I've been getting tired of the video ads - 15-30 second ad, followed by 5 
> second fail, repeated 3 times, more slowly each time, followed by 10 
> second "Failblog" postscript.  Oh, and it's usually the same damned ad 
> each time.

  Just install AdBlock Plus and you'll not even know that the ads exist.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 01:59:34 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I've been getting tired of the video ads - 15-30 second ad, followed by
>> 5 second fail, repeated 3 times, more slowly each time, followed by 10
>> second "Failblog" postscript.  Oh, and it's usually the same damned ad
>> each time.
> 
>   Just install AdBlock Plus and you'll not even know that the ads exist.

I have AdBlock Plus installed (both on Firefox and on Google), and I get 
the ads.  Did you really think I hadn't installed it, especially after 
you'd already suggested it to Andy?

Am I really one you think who would complain about something if I hadn't 
taken steps to work around it?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> AdBlock actualy prevent the ads from even starting to load.
> It's realy a "Can't live without" addon.

I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption 
that it is almost guaranteed not to work.

Designing a mere algorithm which can determine, with 100% accuracy, the 
difference between vital content and useless advertising garbage looks 
almost intractably difficult. Thus, the result would almost certainly be 
a system which either fails to block the majority of ads, or blocks the 
majority of useful content. (Or possibly both, at the same time.)

In other news, I have yet to see a spam filter which actually filters 
out spam and nothing else. (Then again, I haven't searched extensively 
for one...)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:00:48 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>> AdBlock actualy prevent the ads from even starting to load. It's realy
>> a "Can't live without" addon.
> 
> I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption
> that it is almost guaranteed not to work.

Which, of course, is why it's one of the (if not THE) most popular plugin 
for Firefox.  Surely it's popular precisely because it doesn't work at 
all, right? ;)

> Designing a mere algorithm which can determine, with 100% accuracy, the
> difference between vital content and useless advertising garbage looks
> almost intractably difficult. Thus, the result would almost certainly be
> a system which either fails to block the majority of ads, or blocks the
> majority of useful content. (Or possibly both, at the same time.)

It doesn't need to do 100% filtering - it certainly does well enough, 
though.  But you've decided it's "intractably difficult" so it's not 
worth bothering with, even though it's very popular and lots of people 
have great success with it.

Which planet are you on again? ;)

> In other news, I have yet to see a spam filter which actually filters
> out spam and nothing else. (Then again, I haven't searched extensively
> for one...)

None of them make that claim.  But by and large, spam filters do a pretty 
decent job.  The one on Google Mail, for example, *rarely* traps 
something that's not spam (I check it regularly and pull things out that 
shouldn't be, it's about 1 every 2-3 weeks for me on average).  Does it 
get it wrong occasionally?  Sure.  But a quick scan of subject lines (and 
tags - oddly, sometimes it tags messages according to my tag rules but 
still traps them as spam) can easily pick out the mistakes it makes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message