jmc

You are going to put yourself under a tremendous amount of pressure if you are not accustomed to street heeling and wearing a skirt in public. It is probably not the best idea when dealing with airport security as Nigel already said. Flying is stressful enough as it is. A better plan would be to pack the heels and skirt and get in a little wearing at the hotel. Hotel rooms are so boring anyway.

Wonder if he lurks among us?

seaport

SignificanT

Shoe sizing seems to be an inexact science at best and it is frequently a topic of discussion around here. There is a fairly recent thread on the subject here: http://www.hhplace.org/hhboard/viewtopic.php?t=5836. Sizing is always a guessing game because each manufacturer seems to have its own system. Even two different styles from the same manufacturer may fit significantly differently even though they are the same size. It really makes life interesting for those of us who buy from catalogs or online.

fury

Isn't anticipation a killer? -- waiting and waiting and waiting for "that package" to arrive?

Hey, was that the UPS truck?

EsteeM

Hi Phoenix and welcome aboard. I know the "lurker-to-poster" path well, been down it myself. I lurked around here for more than a year before I worked up the guts to register and start posting. As far as re-sizing pictures, there is usually a software package that comes on a CD with the digital camera. It will be Roxio or MGI Photosuite or something like that, or Photoshop. There will be a menu command to "re-size" a photo, search the help file for "re-size". Note that this is not the same as cropping, re-sizing a picture re-interpolates the pixels to produce a picture at a different (lower) resolution. The file size will be a lot smaller too although you will noticeably lose picture quality -- mostly in the form of sharpness. But most modern digital cameras can shoot at dizzying resolutions like 2500 x 1700 or higher and pictures at full resolution take bloody ages to download -- especially through a dial-up connection. For Internet use you probably do not want to go above 640 x 480 resolution -- and for an avatar you want to go MUCH smaller. There is a post somewhere around here that tells the maximum size for avatar pictures. Big avatars really screw up the formatting of the pages. You can probably set your camera to shoot at 640 x 480 too. At that setting you will be able to take thousands of pictures on a 1G card but they will never be any better than 640 x 480 resolution. I prefer to shoot at the best resolution my camera can support and then down-sample (re-size) the pictures if I need them smaller. If I use the pictures in another way (such as printing them or viewing them on a high-resolution monitor) I still have the high-res originals. All this from a guy who has yet to post a picture here!

above

TosS

agreement

EinsteiN --(who proved to us all that everything is relative.)

Hi Louise and welcome back! I think I can explain the disappearance of your username -- this board has been under siege by a bunch of spammers over the last several months. They post loads of drivel about pharmaceuticals, pornography, financial deals, communications and what-not -- nonsense that nobody in their right mind would pursue when offered by some unknown fly-by-night entity on the other side of the world! One particularly aggressive spam-removal session inadvertently deleted a number of valid user logins -- yours was probably one of them. On behalf of the moderators I extend a heartfelt apology. Despite all this madness we all proceed, step by step (in something tasteful with a nice heel whenever possible). It is very heartening to all of us when a nice young lady joins us in our interests.

NirvanA

inspirations

riches

producer

Please! Please! Please! Don't give 'em any ideas!

Jellies -- there's another footwear fashion I don't want to see come back!

trash

This "internet tax" was the subject of an e-mail hoax a few years back. I figured the e-mail in question must have been forwarded to just about everybody with a 'net connection at least a dozen times. I remember it mentioned a (U.S.) Senate bill and gave the number of the bill. As expected the e-mail urged us all to flood Congress with objections. And I'm sure Congress got flooded too! Trouble is, the bill in question was totally ficticious. The number given in the message did not conform to Congressional rules -- any bill originating in the U. S. House will be HR### and any bill originating in the U.S. Senate will be S###. This had some other goofball number entirely and was a dead giveaway that the whole thing was bogus. Not that I would put it past Uncle Sam in his utter arrogance to try to tax the Internet. But I wonder how effective this would be in a technical sense. The Internet is a worldwide phenomenon now and this board is a shining testament to that fact. Uncle Sam, as arrogant and greedy as he is, has absolutely no jurisdiction outside the borders of the United States. So the U.S. government simply cannot levy a tax on anything that goes on outside its borders (you folks on the other side of the big puddle may sing "nyah nyah nyah nyah NYAH nyah" as you see fit. Now we techies know that the Internet is composed of a large number of sub-nets going through all the major population centers of the world. Any information transmitted over the internet is broken up into some number of parts (called "packets") and each packet is routed from the source to the destination. All of the packets that comprise an internet transmission (such as an e-mail message or this very page you are reading now) do not necessarily travel through the same pathways. In fact they may not even arrive in sequence -- the receiver buffers and re-sequences them as it gets them. So if I were to send an e-mail to somebody in California, some of my packets may go through Chicago, some may go through Denver, and some may go through various cities in Canada. If someone in England is downloading a Web page hosted on a Japanese server, packets can literally go around both sides of the globe and through all the intervening nations along the way. So with this theoretical Internet tax, how does Uncle determine which packets are entirely domestic (and therefore taxable), which packets are entirely foreign (and off limits) and which packets come from a foreign server to a domestic server or vice-versa (and may be partially taxable)? I have a feeling that collecting this tax may be more expensive than the revenue it would generate. Which would serve them right! The other option is to tax Internet access, like phone access. And I wouldn't put it past 'em to try that either. I understand that a phone tax dating back to the invention of the telephone network (1800's) was finally eliminated last week. These things take a long time to die. As far as the days of wide-open cyberspace being numbered, that number is zero and has been for several years. With so many Web sites going to fee-based subscription content, the amount of decent, free content on the Web has really dwindled. Which is a shame.

hobo (in heels -- there's an image!)

music

LatE

Maple