Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Gordias last won the day on February 20 2015

Gordias had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2134 profile views

Gordias's Achievements



  1. I think this is something I'm doing to myself via security settings, rather than a bug. I got the same problem on two different systems (Win 10 and Win 8 respectively) each running the correct level of Firefox. In Firefox I run noScript with fairly strict limits on what I allow, Request Policy, and Ghostery. All three do related but not identical things, and I suspect I've set them up in a way that makes them interfere with each other. Exactly the same setup used to work ok, but there's a continual "bats and moths" mutual evolution thing going on between sites that make money from ads, users that want to control ads, and malicious parties that want to steal data and/or do other "bad stuff". Now that the NSA have started forcing suppliers to add "backdoors" to all kinds of products for them to steal data (I suppose I should add a fourth category for this, since it's immoral but not illegal /sigh), it's all become too messy for my taste. BTW: I used to sound even more paranoid before Snowden's disclosures, but I was proven right. You're not paranoid if "they" really are out to get you :) Not that I have anything interesting to hide, but I'm not happy that so many governments have decided they can just steal private information without anything resembling "due process".
  2. Thanks for the info - I didn't know this, and I wish I had known it back when I was posting more, and I didn't have this technical problem. Not sure if anyone cares, but FWIW JavaScript is a programming language, and it's interesting because (a) the code runs in the browser, not on the system that runs the site, and (b) it's used for most browser-based attacks on user systems. It's also used for a lot of good stuff BTW ( 3-D graphical buttons (nice for users), smart ads (nice for site owners), ad blocking (opinions differ between users and site owners :) My security software for controlling JavaScript in my browser is a bit broken at the moment: it's not getting along with the tech used for the site, and I can't figure out how to change that. For the moment, I'll have to go with manually adding tags for quotes :(
  3. Thanks a 1 000 000! PS: When I edited this one it showed all the generated HTML tags, which is interesting. Does the site run on something called IPS.Suite or similar?
  4. [q]My altberg boots had Vibram soles - they couldn't even get a grip on reality, let alone a wet lock gate. [/q] This probably depended on the design of the sole. Vibram is a company name - they sell (among other things) different soles to other footwear manufacturers. The one I linked is designed for wet, icy surfaces. FWIW: I spend more time on ice than most, because in winter I skate on lakes for exercise, which involves walking to/from the lake shore. As a side effect I've learned to make sure I pick "winter soles" rather than e.g. something optimized for summer/road use. Different shoes with soles that appear similar can have very different grip on cold and or icy surfaces. e.g. something designed to grip by moulding itself to the surface is good on roads, but might get hard at sub-zero temperatures and hardly grip at all. This happened to me once (a bad choice on my part), and I couldn't even walk on a near-flat surface of hard snow. Off Topic: I can't see a "quote" button any more. This is almost certainly due to JavaScript security setting (the tools I use donät get along, and I can't "whitelist" any more). Is there a way to create a quote "manually"?. On some sites the [q][/q] does this, but not here.
  5. Today I found something interesting: a newish surface from Vibram that grips well on ice: https://us.vibram.com/technology/arctic-grip/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/outdoor-gear-reviews/vibram-arctic-grip-soles-review/ https://gearjunkie.com/vibram-arctic-grip-sole-for-ice I haven't used these myself, but I'm interested now. They're not cheap though: the first web article I saw was this - the boots are USD 180: https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/best-outdoor-gear-surviving-worst-winter/muck-boots-arctic-ice BTW: There's ice where I live every winter, so I get a fair bit of practice walking on it. There is definitely a big difference in grip on ice between between different synthetic soles. Nothing is perfect of course, but the difference between good and bad soles on ice, wet stones, etc is huge. OFC (as I think someone mentioned already) ice cleats (best for ice) and hobnails (good on more surfaces, including ice) and cleats are probably best, but they are rough on the surface you walk on.
  6. I've never managed to get past one greenie per day. I haven't tried to give more than one for a couple of years though - it may have changed, or perhaps it was because of some other factor (e.g. I hadn't posted enough, or hadn't received enough greenies myself).
  7. I've already voted for "remove the negative optiions". Here's why: I've participated a similar (hobby, non-boatiing) forum, though one that runs at a somewhat higher temperature, that implemented and then had to remove negative feedback. The problem was with highly polarized topics, where one "side" or both would attempt to "bully" individual opposition posters with large amounts of negative feedback, including from people "on their side" who were otherwise neutral regarding the particular topic of sub-topic. The same happens sometimes e where there's tension between individuals (constrained to some extent because it's more obvious that someone is trying to "play the system"). As I said, CWDF runs at a "lower temperature", but there are a few topics (and a very few people) that run "hot enough" so I'd expect this to happen a bit too often here too. A related suggestion: I've found the "one greenie per day" frustrating to the point that I hardly ever use them. I suggest allowing more feedback opportunities per person (only one per post though). I suppose a daily forum- or site-quota wouldn't hurt, but if so I think it should be a lot higher.
  8. It's specified in the byelaws (which I read today for a different thread): 1976 byelaw (4) reads: The owner of a pleasure boat shall not knowingly cause or permit to be used on a canal (not being a river waterway) any pleasure boat in respect of which a pleasure boat licence has been issued unless the licence for the time being in force is displayed on the pleasure boat in such a manner and position as to be clearly visible from outside the pleasure boat at all times. The owner of a commercial vessel shall not knowingly cause or permit to be used on a canal (not being a commercial waterway) any commercial vessel in respect of which a commercial vessel licence has been issued unless the licence for the time being in force is displayed on the commercial vessel in such a manner and position as to be clearly visible from outside the commercial vessel at all times. No person shall knowingly cause or permit to be concealed a pleasure boat licence or commercial vessel licence required to be displayed on a pleasure boat or commercial vessel in accordance with this Bye-law. CaRT would have to have the byelaws changed to remove this requirement.
  9. A good point - it's why, IMO, CaRT can't reasonably take on responsibility for London boaters as a whole. But if they wait it will either stabilize or it will become London's problem. I don't personally believe it will stabilize on its own, but it isn't impossible. Either solution would be ok ... but non-London boaters would be a lot better off if the London canals were turned into a rental business with a steady migration towards CaRT receiving market rentals.
  10. Managing London via prices that balance supply and demand would make perfect sense, but AFAIK the legislation doesn't really support this. OTOH Tuscan's post: seems like the right way forward given that CaRT doesn't want to get into a "head-banging competition" with London boaters (a wise call IMO - I don't think CaRT would win). OTOH it makes sense for them to provide reserved spaces for those who aren't living permanently on the London canals, and more marina-style moorings, with (where possible) all "real" permanent moorings correctly priced. With those users handled, CaRT can let the longer-term towpath moorings take care of themselves for a while. Of course it will evolve, certainly towards more "friction" with neighbours and other canal/towpath users, and probably towards overcrowding. But it won't be CaRT's problem.
  11. If you assume that: CaRT has decided not to try to change the legislation that defines their powers and responsibilities CaRT would like to have the ability to manage mooring duration and perhaps other mooring-related matters Letting London's canals fill up is probably the best plan they have. It's not their responsibility, so they can't be criticized, and it will become "somebody else's problem" soon enough. This way whoever is most unhappy and has the ability to take action will have to do all the "heavy lifting" and take the inevitable political hit, and CaRT will get what they want. In the meantime all they need to do is keep enough temporary moorings available for genuine navigators who want to spend a few days in London and the majority of their customers will be happy.
  12. Background: As you may have noted, I think much of the boatlord's story was "spin" - though possibly "self-justification in retrospect", in which case the spin-doctor may not be fully aware of what they're doing. I viewed the reference to 3rd party insurance as an attempt to imply, without actually lying, that the boat was insured in good faith. In fact it seems more likely that it was insured for the duration of the welding job, at the recommendation of the welder, and intended to protect againt a welding mishap (where the worst case would be burning out some/all of the fitting). On first reading I took it as evidence that the boatlord hadn't insured the boat, and knew it. IMO when you see a half-truth slipped in like that you can be 95% sure that the part left unsaid is to the disadvantage of the speaker, and they that they know it. Of course I'm a bit tarnished by my professional experience, but that kind of trick is routine in marketing.
  13. I had a good reason to review the (barely used) byelaws today, and found something that might interest some thread participants. Note: before you read it: this doesn't represent my opinion on the topic of the correct behavior of, nor interacting with, Volunteer Lockkeepers. It's an exact copy/paste of the text of 1965 byelaw 23 from: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/foi/legal/BW_General_Canal_Bye-laws.pdf The master of any vessel approaching, entering, passing through or by or leaving any lock or movable bridge shall cause his vessel to be navigated at such speed and controlled in such manner as not to strike, imperil, damage, obstruct or run foul of the lock or movable bridge or any part thereof of any other vessel approaching, entering, passing through or by or leaving the lock or movable bridge. At any lock or movable bridge which is operated by staff provided by the Board for that purpose the lock-keeper, bridge-tender, or other authorised officer in charge shall regulate the vessels approaching, passing through and leaving such lock or movable bridge and the masters of all vessels in the vicinity of such lock or movable bridge shall obey the directions of the said lock-keeper, bridge-tender or other authorised officer. Where a signal light is in operation to indicate when a lock or movable bridge is open for vessels to pass the master of a vessel approaching such lock or movable bridge shall not permit his vessel to proceed beyond the said signal light unless it is showing green and shall not permit his vessel so to proceed whilst such light is showing red. In this Bye-law the expression “lock” includes any sluice or weir. My opinion: section (2) seems ok for a professional lock-keeper, but not for a volunteer
  14. Just a limited answer, because I'd rather see this kind of discussion starting from the other direction - that is, a topic where the forum looks for a list of reasonable rules and "enforcement capabilities" for CaRT that would work for everyone. ETA: This is deliberately "mooring duration" centric, because it's my understanding the the vast majority of the uses of the "section 8" enforcement actions are due to what CaRT sees as mooring issues. I'm not trying to address everything CaRT could reasonably manage and/or enforce. Byelaws: Note: my source is: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/foi/legal/BW_General_Canal_Bye-laws.pdf If there are more please give me a link and I'll read the others too. As far as I can see the byelaws contain nothing about mooring duration There are certainly byelaws regarding licensing, but that leads to the enforcement problem ... Difficulties and cost of enforcement of byelaws The byelaws themselves provide no other penalty than small fines The byelaws mention "repeat offenses" but of course this doesn't apply to boaters who choose not to follow CaRT guidelines for mooring durations, since there is no byelaw covering that The maximum fine is £100. Perhaps due to an oversight, the cost for a "continuing offense" is only an additional £2 per day CaRT don't have the right to directly impose fines (the "Parking Ticket" model), so they would have significant "internal" enforcement costs (staff, administration) - probably the same or a litle more than their current non-legal enforcement costs CaRT don't get the money from fines, so there is no additional income Note 1: I don't know if the legal costs to CaRT of enforcing each case of byelaw infraction would be the same as their current average costs for e.g. a "section 8" or significantly less. I'd appreciate some data if you have it Note 2: The current approach includes a deterrent effect (legal costs, loss of boat, costs of boat removal) that a £100 fine might not, so the economic calculation would have to consider both cost (including administrative and field enforcement staff) and frequency (considering the current "terror factor") Note 3: I haven't factored in the possible deterrent effect of a conviction for a byelaw infraction, but of course that would have to be considered beside the current financial risk (the "terror factor"). I don't like CaRT's current approach. But the I think the real questions are different: Should CaRT control mooring times? If so, what's the most effective means of doing so? My personal answer to (1) is "yes", and that includes a wish that boats with a permanent mooring should be "bona fide used for navigation" when not at their mooring, and hence subject to the same restrictions as boats without a permanent mooring. I'm not claiming that CaRT's current approach is provably the best answer to (2), and it's not what I would have done. But I think I understand why they chose it. FWIW I think the whole issue was caused by the BW guy who's named in the 1990 Select Committee you linked for me a few days ago. BW seems to have had no idea of what was needed, or perhaps just didn't care.
  15. Simulates chatting on a mobile phone, but within the browser session. Something for the youngsters who use chat apps a lot I suppose. I just sent you a chat but no reply - does this mean you've never used a phone chatt app?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.