azog

I use Opera 6.something, too, but have different symptoms - I see no images, except for what was previously cached (starting sometime yesterday). Well, doesn't seem like an Opera problem. IE exhibits the same behaviour. *shrug*, I wouldn't be suprised if this was already a known issue, I seem to be fairly clueless lately. ---------- Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be also be like him.

I have four bugs logged, and two of them had their goals attached. One, Barney, even apperently completed it's quest. ---------- Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be also be like him.

When you hide a cache, you provide a method for people to log their finds, which is usually a small notebook (the logbook). I am looking to find out some of the more interesting ways people have devised for logging, ideas that go beyond the ubiquitous logbook. According to the basic rules, a cache generally has a logbook to sign. I am not looking to start a war over what components are actually required for a cache. A recent discussion had a cacher claiming that TNLN logs actually do not satisfy the requirements of finding a cache. However, some of the more interesting twists have different ways of caching. Virtuals and locationless are examples. I am not discussing, nor even willing to discuss, personal opinions on the validity of virts/locationless. I bring it up because these do not have a physical log. A friend of mine hid a tiny cache which has special (unique) contents. You took one and then mailed a description. What other interesting non-standard logging methods have you encountered? On the same topic. Would people tend to avoid (traditional) caches that do not contain a logbook to sign? I have an ulterior method for asking. I have an idea in mind, but want to see what the general opinion is before embarking. I'm being elusive, because I don't want to give my idea away (even if it is a bad one) ---------- Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be also be like him.

When you hide a cache, you provide a method for people to log their finds, which is usually a small notebook (the logbook). I am looking to find out some of the more interesting ways people have devised for logging, ideas that go beyond the ubiquitous logbook. According to the basic rules, a cache generally has a logbook to sign. I am not looking to start a war over what components are actually required for a cache. A recent discussion had a cacher claiming that TNLN logs actually do not satisfy the requirements of finding a cache. However, some of the more interesting twists have different ways of caching. Virtuals and locationless are examples. I am not discussing, nor even willing to discuss, personal opinions on the validity of virts/locationless. I bring it up because these do not have a physical log. A friend of mine hid a tiny cache which has special (unique) contents. You took one and then mailed a description. What other interesting non-standard logging methods have you encountered? On the same topic. Would people tend to avoid (traditional) caches that do not contain a logbook to sign? I have an ulterior method for asking. I have an idea in mind, but want to see what the general opinion is before embarking. I'm being elusive, because I don't want to give my idea away (even if it is a bad one) ---------- Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be also be like him.

deleted... made a comment how one cacher logged it as a find, but reading the log, he only mentions the first cache of the multi.

deleted... made a comment how one cacher logged it as a find, but reading the log, he only mentions the first cache of the multi.

Sounds like fun, but I also do not have a boat, and I cannot stop humming the theme song for Gilligan's Island. ---------- Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be also be like him.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=38094 ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=38094 ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

Like any geeky hobby, one tends to upgrade over time. I'd keep the V, and skip that process. ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

irfanview I have a JamCam 3.0, and for some reason, when I use the Jam software, it saves the JPGs upwards to 400k in size. All I do is then open it in irfanview, and save it over the existing file (no editing). Whammo, it's suddenly under 100k. I guess the Jam software must be pretty cheezy. ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

irfanview I have a JamCam 3.0, and for some reason, when I use the Jam software, it saves the JPGs upwards to 400k in size. All I do is then open it in irfanview, and save it over the existing file (no editing). Whammo, it's suddenly under 100k. I guess the Jam software must be pretty cheezy. ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

I recently logged a locationless, but on further inspection, I realized that I did not meet the requirements. I sent an apology to the owner, and deleted the log. It still shows up as 'found' when I browse locationless caches. The cache is the Carillon cache. ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

I've only met people once. We wouldn't have found it if not for them. This was "early in our careers", and the posted coordinates were about 100 feet off. The other team had more experience. Why do I bring up this story? Where I live, in central-ish NJ (I'm the most southern part of northern NJ, but that sounds confusing), there are a large number of hunters, and it somewhat amazes me that we're not stumbling over each other. Some of the more prolific cachers in our area apperently do stumble upon each other fairly regularly, but I'm nowhere in their class (over 500 finds). ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

I've only met people once. We wouldn't have found it if not for them. This was "early in our careers", and the posted coordinates were about 100 feet off. The other team had more experience. Why do I bring up this story? Where I live, in central-ish NJ (I'm the most southern part of northern NJ, but that sounds confusing), there are a large number of hunters, and it somewhat amazes me that we're not stumbling over each other. Some of the more prolific cachers in our area apperently do stumble upon each other fairly regularly, but I'm nowhere in their class (over 500 finds). ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

it's happened to me here. I understand your feelings. I feel bad that this one got trashed, but the description sounds like an animal got to it. But I still wonder... ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

quote:Originally posted by Rubbertoe: Crud - now I have to get a PDA to try out all these fancy features. Well, the Palm version of MobiPocket is pretty crappy. There's been discussions about it before. But, hey, it's free. Apperently the PocketPC version is much better. Too bad for me - I traded down from an HP567 to a CLIE. You can also download a Windows desktop version of the reader. ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

I have a theory about the golf balls. See, these golf balls are a self-replicating life-form. They're slowing intergrating our society, and have some sinister plan. I don't know what the plan is. But it's an ingenious way to infiltrate. How innocent they look. But one daY YOU'LL ALL SEE! ahem, 'scuse me. ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot:Either that doctor remains rigidly "old school," or you acquired that tick in the distant past. I guess he must be old school, because this happened no more than two months ago, sometime in July. The doctor put me on some sort of drug, Just In Case (which is completely fine by me). ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:Do NOT try to burn it off with a match, or cigarette, or cover it with petrolium jelly. Once removed, if you are still concerned, you can put the tick in a Ziploc and have it tested. Many local boards of health offer this service for a nominal charge. I had a tick only once. I put it in a bag and took it to my doctor, and he said there's nothing he can do with it? I just tossed it. He also told me to use petro jelly to suffocate a tick, if/when I have another one. I'm not refuting you, but now I have two different opinions, and that confuses me. ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

Sometimes the map thumbnail, on the cache page, seems to be at a different zoom level, but I've not been able to discern a pattern. Maybe it's just me, so if someone could look at this one and compare it with this one. They're close together. I did a 'find nearby', and picked several in this area, but this is the only one that acted odd. It doesn't bother me, nor will it force the earth to tilt off it's axis (meaning it's not really important), but I am just curious as to why? ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

I don't have children, but the letters are burned in memory and have only one possible meaning. ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

Unfortunately, my suggestion is after the fact. PayPal sucks. I sent a check, from the east coast. Within three days, my account was activated. No pain, no problems. ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

I know there's no real official protocol for logging benchmarks, but people seem to develop their own personal protocols. Just out of curiousity. So. Do you search for marks already found, and do you log them? If you do a proximity search and see some that have already been logged, do you by-pass them? ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!

I wonder if it would be possible to consider making user supplied coordinates into a link to MapQuest? I'm specifically thinking of locationless cache logs, rather than "corrected" coordinates which finders post in their logs. ---------- Chickenfoot! Come back! You're not a freak! You're just stupid!