|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 222 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 150 of 222:
| 
Nov 30 14:28 UTC 2000 |
I hated Park Place, especially the managment.
|
ashke
|
|
response 151 of 222:
|
Nov 30 14:45 UTC 2000 |
I had friends who lived there, and from what I remember, they didn't like the
management, the property is kinda rundown, and they had bats in their
apartment from the attic (they were in a top floor apartment) and it took
almost 2 weeks before they got rid of them. I tend to avoid that place.
|
other
|
|
response 152 of 222:
|
Nov 30 18:40 UTC 2000 |
I used to live at Park Place. Pass.
Thanks for the urls, I'll check 'em out.
|
ashke
|
|
response 153 of 222:
|
Nov 30 19:12 UTC 2000 |
Welcome :)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 154 of 222:
|
Nov 30 20:43 UTC 2000 |
I found that most of the apartments listed in the apartment search services
were for complexes.
Based on my interpretation of what you've said, I'd say look in the AA News
classifieds, in the "for rent" section, but look under "duplexes" as well as
apartments. A couple of times (I lived in many different places during my
years in Ann Arbor) I found much better than run-of-the-mill apartments that
were overlooked because they were listed in the "duplexes" section. I used
to assume most of the stuff in the duplex category was your traditional
side-by-side half-of-a-house arrangement, but found that there are all sorts
of other arrangements that get advertised in there and that the category
isn't as relentlessly scoured as the apartments for rent category, so if
you find a place there's a much better chance it's available and the
landlord is often more flexible.
I could never decide whether the decision to advertise as a duplex was a
mistake from the landlords' perspective or whether they did it deliberately
to attract a different sort of clientele than went after the "apartments"
market, but anyway, I found the duplex offerings to be more to my taste.
|
ric
|
|
response 155 of 222:
|
Nov 30 22:09 UTC 2000 |
(Now that I've gone back and read beyond the first sentence of his response,
I'm guessing that Mike is probably right.. :)
|
other
|
|
response 156 of 222:
|
Nov 30 23:19 UTC 2000 |
Seems so. Definitely in the comment about the services. Thanks for the
duplex hint.
|
eprom
|
|
response 157 of 222:
|
Dec 3 09:52 UTC 2000 |
I ordered a "jambon eru" thing at the Mall in Marseilles, come to find out
its basically a ham sandwich...it was yummy! :)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 158 of 222:
|
Dec 5 16:08 UTC 2000 |
An amusement for those of you with graphical web browsers:
http://www.happyhub.com/network/reflex
|
gelinas
|
|
response 159 of 222:
|
Dec 5 18:39 UTC 2000 |
(Actually it appears to be for those who are willing to give any random hacker
access to their machine. That is, it requires javascript.)
|
birdy
|
|
response 160 of 222:
|
Dec 5 21:06 UTC 2000 |
IWLTA that the group flem and I sing with will be performing near the
Engineering Arch on Saturday, December 9th from 3:00 p.m. 'til whenever. We
will be singing carols (in Latin) and other medieval/renaissance era songs.
This is through the SCA, which is an international group dedicated to
reproducing/reenacting the Medieval and Renaissance periods.
And yes, we will be in period clothing. =)
|
jor
|
|
response 161 of 222:
|
Dec 5 21:13 UTC 2000 |
*outside*?
better be period goosedown
|
flem
|
|
response 162 of 222:
|
Dec 5 22:12 UTC 2000 |
Oh, right, we're wearing period. I better get crackin'. :)
|
ric
|
|
response 163 of 222:
|
Dec 6 02:46 UTC 2000 |
I don't know of any way that "hackers" can obtain "access" to your machine
via javascript.
I know that javascript can occassionally be used to do some annoying things,
but javascript has absolutely no way to access your machine.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 164 of 222:
|
Dec 6 02:48 UTC 2000 |
It runs on your machine doesn't it? The interpreter does whatever its
implementer allows. I don't trust the implementers, so I don't run
javascript.
I know they claim its safer than java, but that's never been much comfort
to me.
|
gull
|
|
response 165 of 222:
|
Dec 6 04:52 UTC 2000 |
Well, if you don't trust the implementers you better not use HTML, either.
There was that bug in IE4 that allowed a certain type of malformed tag to be
used to replace arbitrary files on your system.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 166 of 222:
|
Dec 6 05:05 UTC 2000 |
I don't use IE. I don't much trust M$ to do *anything* right. ;)
|
ric
|
|
response 167 of 222:
|
Dec 6 13:27 UTC 2000 |
The web must suck for you, since so much of it uses javascript. It's a
perfectly secure language unless Microsoft has fucked it up on the Ie platform
(not entirely out of the question)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 168 of 222:
|
Dec 6 17:28 UTC 2000 |
Nah, I don't miss it it all. I either find a different way to get the
information (sometimes from the site), or I skip it. So far, I've found
nothing I just could not live without.
Ya see, I think of the web as an information-delivery vehicle: It's sole
reason (and excuse) for existence is to deliver information to me. If a
particular site fails to accomplish that goal, that's fine; someone else
will have the same information.
|
flem
|
|
response 169 of 222:
|
Dec 6 17:45 UTC 2000 |
Occasionally I find a bit of content that requires javascript that I actually
want to see, and I turn it on then. Usually, though, javascript exists for
the sole purpose of pissing me off. Which is something I can easily live
without.
|
birdy
|
|
response 170 of 222:
|
Dec 6 19:28 UTC 2000 |
Re #161 - I have a Scottish persona, therefore my outfit will be very warm,
wool tartan. =)
|
flem
|
|
response 171 of 222:
|
Dec 6 21:32 UTC 2000 |
Apparently on Thursday 11/30, the Michigan Senate unanimously passed Senate
Bill 1116, which amends the Michigan Penal code having to do with prostitution
and adult entertainment. It includes the following text, from new section
465a(3):
"A person shall not knowingly appear in an adult entertainment establishment
in a nude or semi-nude condition unless the person is 21 years of age or older
and at least 6 feet from any patron or customer."
The bill goes to the House now, I gather, but I don't imagine its reception
there will differ from the Senate much.
No more lap dances. No more college girls stripping to make ends meet.
I'll probably post something longer about this in the sex conf.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 172 of 222:
|
Dec 6 22:25 UTC 2000 |
re #167: You'd be surprised at the number of benefits there are to
turning off Javascript. I leave it off 90% of the time and when I
turn it on to look at something and then forget to turn it off again
I'm amazed when I visit the sites I normally frequent -- all those
distracting pop-up windows, all of the weird mouseover shit that doesn't
serve any purpose except to distract, etc.. -- all gone when you turn
of Javascript. Yet 98% of the content is still perfectly accessible..
|
swa
|
|
response 173 of 222:
|
Dec 7 03:20 UTC 2000 |
"Shall not *knowingly* appear?"
|
carson
|
|
response 174 of 222:
|
Dec 7 14:25 UTC 2000 |
(I suspect that wording exempts anyone who might be gang-raped in a bar.)
|