jeff costello

don't know about ebay templates, but my guess would be that your friend just did not declare image sizes at all and your new image files are bigger than the ones your friend used. easiest fix would be to just make the image files you are using smaller. alternatively, you can declare image size in the html file like this: inline: <img src="http://....jpg" height="100" width="100" /> <img src="http://....jpg" style="width: 100px; height: 100px; " /> <img src="http://....jpg" style="width: 100px; height: auto " /> if your img-tags have a field called "class" or "id", like this: <img src="http://....jpg" class="something" /> then the image-size info is stored either in a seperate css-file or within style-tags at the top of your html-file (just find the section with the same name as your class/id)

somebody ever tried to add some cushioning to a tube setup to avoid snakebites? since it's winter and i can't ride, i feel like bike tinkering. i thought about adding a layer of foam from an old camping mat to the inside of my back tire. now unfortunately i just found out i threw away the old mat, i had lying around for ages. not sure it's worth buying a new one to give it a try.

really liked the first season of Unforgotten.

i'd do that too, but unfortunately i don't have any dry space in the vicinity. so i stay home when it's wet or snowy. looks like this will be a longer break this year.

i haven't ridden my bike since about a week before christmas. now it's crazy cold and snow on the ground. doesn't look like i can go ride anytime soon. makes me a bit depressive. last two winters were so warm i was riding almost all if the time.

kein schnee??!?

hmm? what about putting one of those edge protector rolls in there? maybe the really fat one for the 19" ?

Portishead <3 <3

seriously, i tried to ignore the gimmicks and concentrate on the riding. but you can barely see what they are doing because the light is so murky

why?? horrible trials videos seems to be a genre now. this is the worst one so far

not helpful, but there are russian army watches that have 24h scales - one day is one full turn of the dial. i think "raketa" is one of the brands. there are quite a few on ebay. i kinda wanted one a few years ago, but watches are just too useless.

which one? british or us. one? i only saw the british one. really liked the first half or so, but it got boring later on.

boy, that was exceptionally horrible.

it's easy to spot when you know what you are looking for, screw-on freewheel are a lot thicker than fixed cogs. freewheels: http://www.tartybikes.co.uk/complete_freewheels/c16.html fixed cogs are just a piece of metal with no built-in mechanism. you have to have one freeweheel in your drivetrain either in the front (on your cranks) or in the back (on your hub). if your chain keeps moving when your bike is coasting and you don't move your feet - that's a giveaway for a front freewheel setup. i suspect you might have one like this, but it's hard for me to see in your picture. building your own wheels is possible, but a bit tricky for beginners, especially without special tools. you might not be able to re-use your old spokes, since most hubs come in different sizes. lots of tutorials about wheelbuilding on the net.

free hubs have a built-in freewheel (like hope hubs and mtb hubs), fixed hubs only have a thread onto which you screw either just a fixed cog (front freewheel setup) or a freewheel.

landed my first taps today. it's a move i always wanted to be able to do. just a small 40-45cm wall with a little bit of run-up, nothing special, still really happy about that.

there's a good chance i'm even older (just about to start my late-thirties) i'm leaving this here, just because i'm reading it at the moment: http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/11/the-forces-that-drove-this-elections-media-failure-are-likely-to-get-worse/ that's exactly the problem. those sorts of news-outlets just throw shit at the wall (stuff that feels right to people) until something sticks. you can say A LOT without danger of being sued - you might be able to sue somebody to stop repeating facts that are clearly wrong (if there is someone you can get ahold of), but if something is in any way marked as a personal opinion by the speaker, you have no chance (apart from insults / open calls for violence etc). conventional media at least has to answer to critique by other media. if you think about how much bullshit is going on in conventional media, you can start to imagine how bad it is in alternative media. say, chemtrails, for an easy example - there is just nothing to it (apart from normal pollution). but certain people keep repeating it, which makes other people think that there maybe could be something to it, which then leads to our local right-winger who runs for the presidency (i'm from austria btw.) make an enquiry in the parliament about chemtrails, because he knows certain people will like it, which then leads to even more people thinking there might be something to it. my guess would be, because they have political agendas - here in austria the alt.media is just starting and there are a lot of "newspapers" popping up with serious-sounding names that are total bogus and are somehow linked to our rightwing populist party. on the other hand people who run this kind of media outlets (alex jones comes to my mind here) are completely talentless, opportunistic hacks, who found a niche where they can get the attention they crave with minimal work.

sorry, i didn't get the all-inclusive equality part, since we were mostly talking about gender. the scenario you described is not really a problem though - as far as i know all standards for affirmative action call for equal qualifications for a decision based on gender/race etc. but "qualification" is not an exact term - people value things differently. male people who are hiring somebody might put more emphasis on male characteristics, hence the boy's club staying a boy's club despite proclaimed equality. soldiers in active combat are a very small and peculiar group. i'd rather not have the military as an example for the rest of society. i don't think i've ever heard a call for gender equality within front-line troops or special forces.

equality is just a new name for "feminism". it was always about equality. there was never any influential strain of feminism that was about female-superiority. after at least 2000 years of total dominance white males can survive a little inequality in certain areas. white males still have it the easiest of all anyway.

my opinion is, that it is low level politicians and media are feeding people the wrong answers and even the wrong problems. crime has been going down for years, terrorism as well, but still people are more afraid than ever. the system does need fine-tuning and there are people getting unjustly rich. there is a problem with base level jobs in europe - (i think) it is a lot harder to feed a family and build a house on one or one-and-a-half income than it once was ... but the world today is a totally different beast than in the 50ies and 60ies and no one can convince me that this was a better time - we have more social security, people are better educated, are travelling, the whole of leisure industry, pop culture and communications didn't exist at all back then. medical and scientific progress are insane. less racism, less homophobia, more gender-equality. and most importantly less chances of wars happening (within the western world) . people who say that the system is f**ked / can't get any worse and needs changing take all those things for granted, while they are clearly benefits of the way how the system is now. regarding infowars etc: there are reasons why mainstream media won't report about certain things: mostly because they are bogus or can't be proven. classic media has something to lose: a reputation, jobs - they can't go on reporting bullshit, because it will damage their operation. the so-called alternative media are mostly single-guy operations of people who clearly have political agendas and they can spout whatever nonsense they want with no consequences if there were any one family or race or whatever running the world behind the scenes, you can be sure the first reporter who gets wind of any proof will publish it in a heartbeat. because it will make him the most influential/ important journalist in the world. and the same goes for science: if there were any proof for that celery-cancer-cure every scientist would publish that immediately, because he would be showered in money and nobel prices for the rest of his life. i'm not saying trump (or any politician active in the western world today) is like hitler. but... i have recently read "mein kampf" for an article project and it was very shocking to me how similar a lot of it is to things you hear today: for example that the media is bought/jewish, the elites that are getting fat off our money, every other politician except him are corrupt and incompetent, you're being victimised when you are a nationalist, the system is broken etc. there is more stuff there that is luckily just not possible anymore today: open calls for violence, racism, eugenics, the open hatred against the jews and "lower" races, those insane theories about the evolution and singularity of the aryan race... @Mikee it's rather cheeky to invoke equality after 43 white males and a little brake.

i don't think so. i don't think most people feel represented by trump or even like him. they just hate hillary more and/or want to stick it to the system by voting for disaster.

as i said before, i agree with you theoretically, but not practically. the male-exclusiveness of presidents (and in most top-jobs around the world) is a historic flaw that should be corrected. i believe women in top-positions will create more women in top-positions, hence it's something that should be supported (at this point in time). and i do think obama was possible because of the black-vote. he managed to get more black people to vote as ususal, because they felt included (something that hillary probably wasn't able to do as much with women-voters). people will vote for candidates who they feel understand and represent them and their problems. same as you probably would vote for a trials-rider for the UCI-presidency or for a guy who rides the same brand of car as you do for presidency of your car-club.

theoretically not, but there is equally no valid reason to only have presidents from one gender. i'd not vote for someone because of gender-only, but in the situation we are in, being female should get an actual bonus point.

which is a totally valid reason. women make up more than 50% of the population, but have not once held the presidency. that's something that should be balanced. but femaleness does not influence truth/ rightness of her opinions and actions.

being mad at opinions is one thing... but occasionally when people try to come up with reasons for their opinions (that goes a little further than "i felt it was the right thing") and they speak the most inane idiocy you can imagine, like citing infowars as a credible news source, what's left then except to curse the world and it's stupidity??