To echo Russell's comment: back it up.
I bought iTunes Match, it matched my music and then when I got a new iDevice told me it had loaded it up with music.
So far so good, except it hadn't. It gave me access to the music "in the cloud" (that is, it's there when you have an internet connection) but did not install it on my device at all. I found this out the hard way when boarding a plane and finding my music collection had vanished.
In the end I had to switch off the product I'd bought, connect the device to my computer, download the music off the computer the old fashioned way (y'know, with a cable) and then ... I'd lost the will to give Apple any money at all.
Eventually someone explained to me the wee icons Apple used and why I had exactly the service I'd paid for, just not the service I was expecting.
The moral of the story is: back everything up and store it elsewhere before starting on this path, lest the rage fall upon you from a high height.
Surely that's "Bl*ggers, Pr*cks, Ars*holes..."?
ew, I hadn't noticed that but yes... how vile.
That aside, I quite like the redesign and the website is much cleaner.
I nearly biffed out The Magazine unread as it's so extremely glossy my jaded reporter's eye took it to be an ad insert for Boulgaris real estate (or similar). How long will such stock last I wonder.
While you're right, there's some meat in there (although what an odd place for it in the magazine) I was less than impressed to be greeted on the first page of the first story with a photo shoot of Our Athletes in their PJs. Two women, naturally, with the caption: "Sarah and Lisa haven't seen each other since London and meet with a hug".
I can only presume the pillow fight came later.
Ah, so the transcript that isn't a real transcript... much like Hansard can be "corrected" by MPs after the fact (thank you Winston).
Glad to see he hasn't lost the plot that completely.
Job done - looks like the LinkedIN profile has been updated. No reference to anything in motion.
The Regent in Hamilton was the most god-awful fleapit in my day. I remember taking a date to a movie, we had front row seats (in the balcony as the ground floor was closed presumably because it was a cess-pit) and the manager getting quite shirty when we pointed out the seats were so low she couldn't see the screen.
My favourite though would have to be from the old country - the Hippodrome in Wrexham, the first cinema I was allowed to go to without grown-up supervision. No sweet shop inside, we literally queued round the block to get in. But there's no cinema like a Welsh cinema full of kids - they boo the baddy and cheer the goody no matter what. Star Wars has never been the same since.
You internet people are all the same anyway. It must be true, I read it on the web.
Very good point - initially we were told that kids with various disabilities would be excluded from the school's assessment - now they're back in.
This means my own primary school, which has a large ESOL contingent (still can't say cohort without thinking of pirates) and an equally large disability unit with a number of kids who aren't measurable in NS terms will be disadvantaged and potentially labelled as failing when in fact they're doing a fantastic job by all accounts.
I've heard from one primary school that the data gathered for the ministry is now being assessed on a much lesser scale than the curriculum demands. The reason I presume is to make sure the kids all "pass" in numbers such that National Standards can be declared a success.
I know that as a parent I have seen a degrading in the information the school is handing out, as we move from a comprehensive report that details how each child is doing to a "failing/coping/excelling" model.
Incidentally, how much trouble is it going to cause a child to have "failing" stamped on their forehead in their very first report aged five or six? Simply unacceptable.