I have recently discovered that the Royal Mail offer an on-line postage printing service. You can buy postage for the basic services, print off an address slip or label on your printer and stick it on your post.
It seems to work well and is genuinely useful. It certainly saves having to walk to the Post Office as much.
06 February 2007
18 January 2007
E-mail to Amazon
I have been growing increasingly irritated by Amazon and the changes they have made to their interface, in particular the use of information about Marketplace items. So I wrote an e-mail to them:
Comments:Dear madam/sir,
Whilst I have been very impressed with the redesigned search and item list interface, there is one issue that makes it at times almost unusable. A large number of categories are filled with Amazon Marketplace items. These items make it very hard to find genuine Amazon stock, often requiring that I look through several pages of items to find one that is relevant.
On a related note, the Wishlist shows prices not of Amazon stock, but of Marketplace items. Thus to discover how much an item will cost, I need to view the individual item page for each item rather than having the information displayed in a simple list as the Wishlist concept would seem to imply.
I have searched high and low through my account preferences, through the relevant screens, and through the on-line help but can find no suggestion of how to exclude Marketplace items from searches or the Wishlist.
I have no interest in buying second-hand items from sources who will never be able to match the reliability or trustworthiness of Amazon. I wish to buy first-hand stock from Amazon, yet the recent interface changes seem to make this strangely difficult.
Yours sincerely,
******
Their response was as follows:
Dear Customer
Thank you for contacting Amazon.co.uk.
We appreciate that you've taken the time to send us your suggestion. I have passed along your comments to our developers; customer feedback like yours is essential in helping them determine what additional features our visitors and customers want most.
Thank you for shopping at Amazon.co.uk.
Comments:Dear madam/sir,
Whilst I have been very impressed with the redesigned search and item list interface, there is one issue that makes it at times almost unusable. A large number of categories are filled with Amazon Marketplace items. These items make it very hard to find genuine Amazon stock, often requiring that I look through several pages of items to find one that is relevant.
On a related note, the Wishlist shows prices not of Amazon stock, but of Marketplace items. Thus to discover how much an item will cost, I need to view the individual item page for each item rather than having the information displayed in a simple list as the Wishlist concept would seem to imply.
I have searched high and low through my account preferences, through the relevant screens, and through the on-line help but can find no suggestion of how to exclude Marketplace items from searches or the Wishlist.
I have no interest in buying second-hand items from sources who will never be able to match the reliability or trustworthiness of Amazon. I wish to buy first-hand stock from Amazon, yet the recent interface changes seem to make this strangely difficult.
Yours sincerely,
******
Their response was as follows:
Dear Customer
Thank you for contacting Amazon.co.uk.
We appreciate that you've taken the time to send us your suggestion. I have passed along your comments to our developers; customer feedback like yours is essential in helping them determine what additional features our visitors and customers want most.
Thank you for shopping at Amazon.co.uk.
19 December 2006
Sausages
One aspect of food packaging has irritated me for some time. Most packaging comes with a 'serving suggestion' picture on it. These pictures fall into one of four categories.
One: Not irritating; and thus not interesting.
Two: The lovely. These pictures show an item of culinary delight which includes the ingredient inside the packaging. Unfortunately, the packaging does not include a recipe indicating how the contents become the whole dish or what other items are required. This is more of a disappointment than an irritation.
Three: The self-evident. The tub of ice-cream with a picture of two scoops of ice-cream in a bowl with a spoon. Well I was hardly going to eat it off of the floor, was I?
Four: The imbecilic. I recently purchased some Sainsbury's Taste The Difference pork and bramley apply sausages. They are very nice sausages, as are all in that range, I thoroughly recommend them.
On the packaging is the inevitable serving suggestion picture. The way in which the designers recommend eating six pork sausages is thus: A bramley with a sprig of sage. That is correct, the serving suggestion for a packet of sausages does not include any sausages.
I can quite understand wanting to put a picture of a bramley apple on a packet of sausages which have bramleys in them. That would be logical and a sensible way of decorating these sausages. Putting the words 'serving suggestion' on this picture does not do anyone any good.
Just in case you missed my point above: The serving suggestion for a packet of sausages. Does not. Include. Any. Sausages.
This is absurd. Completely absurd.
One: Not irritating; and thus not interesting.
Two: The lovely. These pictures show an item of culinary delight which includes the ingredient inside the packaging. Unfortunately, the packaging does not include a recipe indicating how the contents become the whole dish or what other items are required. This is more of a disappointment than an irritation.
Three: The self-evident. The tub of ice-cream with a picture of two scoops of ice-cream in a bowl with a spoon. Well I was hardly going to eat it off of the floor, was I?
Four: The imbecilic. I recently purchased some Sainsbury's Taste The Difference pork and bramley apply sausages. They are very nice sausages, as are all in that range, I thoroughly recommend them.
On the packaging is the inevitable serving suggestion picture. The way in which the designers recommend eating six pork sausages is thus: A bramley with a sprig of sage. That is correct, the serving suggestion for a packet of sausages does not include any sausages.
I can quite understand wanting to put a picture of a bramley apple on a packet of sausages which have bramleys in them. That would be logical and a sensible way of decorating these sausages. Putting the words 'serving suggestion' on this picture does not do anyone any good.
Just in case you missed my point above: The serving suggestion for a packet of sausages. Does not. Include. Any. Sausages.
This is absurd. Completely absurd.
10 December 2006
England versus Western Australia
The BBC match report of the England versus Western Australia warm-up game.
Geraint Jones, in the team as a specialist batsman, scores a primary.
Chris Read, wicketkeeper-batsman, scores fifty nine.
Geraint Jones, in the team as a specialist batsman, scores a primary.
Chris Read, wicketkeeper-batsman, scores fifty nine.
09 December 2006
Richard Dawkins, a continuation
A reader of my blog made a few comments about my treatment of Richard Dawkins in my previous post. My response to those comments is below. I have edited them slightly in order that they make more sense away from the context of the reader's comments. Also, they are slightly disjointed, again because of the lack of context, back I think it all makes sense.
Before my reply though, I would like to add that the previous post was intended as a humorous image of hell. My intent was not to attack either Richard Dawkins or Ian Paisley, that was merely an added bonus.
My reply:
I don't take issue with the content of Dawkins' work. For the most part I agree with it; in the original post I explicitly recognised his ability as a biologist. His views on religion may be exaggerated, but I have no argument with the core of his arguments. Naturally, as a believer, there are some things I outright disagree with.
What I find ironic is his attitude and method of delivery. He makes a big show of being the rational scientist with an open mind fighting the evils of the superstitious religious nonsense. Yet he is as closed to differing opinions as the con-evo southern baptist, the hardcore papist or even your typical middle of the road liberal Anglican. He is as much a religious fanatic as Paisley is. I do not hesitate to call either bigoted.
Absolutely many religious movements have been vicious, nasty things. Some get it right, but they don't tend to last long. But that is true of any organised piece of humanity, be it a government, a public service or a bunch or randoms in the pub. The problem isn't religion, or God; it is humans.
That in itself is another danger of the science can solve and cure everything camp. Science can't by itself, it needs to be pointed in the right direction. That pointing may come from God, or it may not, but to uphold science as God leads to the assumption that something that can be done, should be done. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, napalm and Portsmouth say otherwise.
Before my reply though, I would like to add that the previous post was intended as a humorous image of hell. My intent was not to attack either Richard Dawkins or Ian Paisley, that was merely an added bonus.
My reply:
I don't take issue with the content of Dawkins' work. For the most part I agree with it; in the original post I explicitly recognised his ability as a biologist. His views on religion may be exaggerated, but I have no argument with the core of his arguments. Naturally, as a believer, there are some things I outright disagree with.
What I find ironic is his attitude and method of delivery. He makes a big show of being the rational scientist with an open mind fighting the evils of the superstitious religious nonsense. Yet he is as closed to differing opinions as the con-evo southern baptist, the hardcore papist or even your typical middle of the road liberal Anglican. He is as much a religious fanatic as Paisley is. I do not hesitate to call either bigoted.
Absolutely many religious movements have been vicious, nasty things. Some get it right, but they don't tend to last long. But that is true of any organised piece of humanity, be it a government, a public service or a bunch or randoms in the pub. The problem isn't religion, or God; it is humans.
That in itself is another danger of the science can solve and cure everything camp. Science can't by itself, it needs to be pointed in the right direction. That pointing may come from God, or it may not, but to uphold science as God leads to the assumption that something that can be done, should be done. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, napalm and Portsmouth say otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
