briggaman

Ok, I have some more iPhone questions if anyone would be kind enough to please answer them. They are as follows:

1) Firstly, how do you switch the iPhone off? Sorry if this seems like a silly question, yet I can only seem to put it on standby, yet need to turn it off to connect to my new operator (O2).

2) I am going abroad in the next few months and want to make sure I don't get a massive bill, as I don't need to use internet or anything abroad. All I want to do is to be able to receive calls and send texts. Doe anyone know what I need to turn off in order to be safe? Like do I turn 3G off, and if so would I still be able to receive calls and make them?

3) Lastly, I was wondering what sort of life you all get out of your battery? Mine doesn't seem to be too great. It lasts for about two days. Also, what percentage do you all let the battery to before you recharge it?

Anyway, I hope someone will be able to help me with these things. My big concern is going abroad, as I don't want to run up a massive bill for things I have no need to use. Thanks in advance.

Rev answered the top one.

2) Settings > General > Locations services OFF

+ Network > Data roaming OFF

Also phone o2 and check what they might need to do.

3) Depends on; App usage, Music usage, Data usage, Network usage. If you turn off wifi / Data roaming / Location services etc - you could push 3 days out of it. I leave it to go red before charging.

Thanks

1] I would imagine you turn the iPhone off in the same way as you turn an iPod touch off. Hold down the button that turns the screen off for three seconds, then slide your finger over the screen when prompted.

Thanks very much. I didn't have a clue as haven't used an iTouch before. I had the generation of iPod before that.

That's question one answered, so anyone else have any feedback on the other two please?

Ok, I have some more iPhone questions if anyone would be kind enough to please answer them. They are as follows:

1) Firstly, how do you switch the iPhone off? Sorry if this seems like a silly question, yet I can only seem to put it on standby, yet need to turn it off to connect to my new operator (O2).

2) I am going abroad in the next few months and want to make sure I don't get a massive bill, as I don't need to use internet or anything abroad. All I want to do is to be able to receive calls and send texts. Doe anyone know what I need to turn off in order to be safe? Like do I turn 3G off, and if so would I still be able to receive calls and make them?

3) Lastly, I was wondering what sort of life you all get out of your battery? Mine doesn't seem to be too great. It lasts for about two days. Also, what percentage do you all let the battery to before you recharge it?

Anyway, I hope someone will be able to help me with these things. My big concern is going abroad, as I don't want to run up a massive bill for things I have no need to use. Thanks in advance.

Just got it yesterday. Brilliant piece of kit and works nicely with my MacBook Pro. I'm loving how easy it is to use and the various apps. By the way, does anyone know of any good apps? There have probably been some already posted in here yet I am too lazy to go back and look.

Just buy a pay as you go iPhone and unlock it to your current contract whoever it may be with.

I hear that apple/O2 have software updates to ensure that certain features are not supported if you go outside the O2 contract. I am currently with vodafone who really can't offer anything remotely close to an iphone.

I know this was posted a little while back, but now Vodafone can offer the N97 in a good £40 deal. Looks like a good piece of kit. Think it has something like 32gb memory (which can be upgraded too), has a QWERTY keyboard, 5 megapixel camera and it seems quite nice.

I am torn between getting the N97 or the iPhone 3G S. I'm leaning towards the iPhone. Anyone think this would be a wise choice? I was also wondering if the iPhone can take video (like filming from the phone)? I have a Mac so that has also made me lean slightly towards the iPhone. I'm still thinking though so any feedback would be great.

I was on my Alliance toon the other day when they announced that they would be running a raid on Ogrimmar later in the evening. I hopped over to my Horde that evening and told everyone to be in Ogrimmar. Good times ensued as we wiped the Alliance out. I love messing up the plans of others.....

Make it happen then, get a load of us starting from level 1

I'd love that tbh

I'll join in if you do this. I never played on the same server as you all.

Pushed back to January 2010 now so my hopes for this game will be even higher. I would rather they take their time and make things right than rush a release.

Sick of playing Horde on your server? Swap to the Alliance then!

I sense bad things...

That is shocking....

I don't get it though. Will they change your race too? As others said on the forums it would be weird having gnomes on Horde etc. I mean, surely they will make it so you change race too. Anyway, not liking this whatever it is you can do. Just giving way to lazy people once again...

Biggest club in manchester????

Not. A. Chance.

That would mean they would also have to become the biggest club in teh world.

It would also mean they would have to win a hell of a lot of trophies to catch up to Man Utd. They are miles behind the likes of ourselves and Man Utd as far as trophies go.

I have seen on a few messageboards with Man City supporters saying people don't have a clue if they think City have hardly won anything. Plus saying that people must have only started watching football since the PL began. The fact is they are numpties and don't even know their own history. Man City have won very little throughout their history (four FA Cups, two League Cups and other nonsense). Not the worst haul ever, yet it shows that they haven't won much. Their fans are becoming deluded by the vast amounts of money they have.

Still a shit club and are still miles behind in trophies won.....

I would like to add to my contribution of Michael K. Williams with that of Michael Crichton. Without him we would never have had these:

Michael K. Williams (Omar Little from The Wire)

"Indeed"

tranny

So you wouldn't have sex with her if she stood infront of you naked and jumped on you? If you would then you are admitting that you would have sex with someone you think looks like a tranny. If you wouldn't then I have serious doubts about your sexuality. Unless you are female of course.

There has to be something wrong with a man when he doesn't include Keeley Hazell in his top 10.

Plus having Nicole Scherzinger in there aswell, and no Megan Fox. I suppose it is all down to personal taste.

simple, I don't like plastic, i like flesh.

Kate Beckinsale & Eva Mendes & Megan Fox just missed out on my list.

Keeley Hazell isn't plastic. Hers are 100% real. I'd say Nicole Scherzinger is much more plastic than Megan Fox too. But oh well, they are all nice.

I just feel that too many people don't know anything about renal failure. Not through their own fault, yet due to the lack of exposure it gets due to other illnesses.

very true. i don't have a clue.

i didn't know anything about the genetic condition that you described.

thanks for informing us.

i still don't think i could do it though.

Question? isn't getting a kidney through the donor scheme the same? ie: once someone dies?

It's understandable why people wouldn't want to do it. After all you have to go through an operation to do so. However I have the highest respect for people that do such things, as it could keep someone else alive for many more years than they would survive otherwise. Plus it shouldn't harm the health of the donor at all. Therefore the only real risk is going through the operation in the first place. It is a risk though as any operation can be. Therefore the decision to be a donor should not be taken lightly. Yet I believe it is a very important thing and I would encourage people that I know to at least look into it.

Getting a kidney throughout the donor scheme can take longer than if there is a live donor. It is all to do with matching bloods and tissue types. Thus on the list you have to wait your turn, plus the match has to be found. If there are more live donors then there is more chance of finding a match sooner. Plus a live kidney is better than one from a deceased person in most circumstances.

My top 10:

1) Hayden Panettiere

2) Jessica Alba

3) Scarlett Johanssen

4) Cheryl Cole

5) Keira Knightley

6) Nicole Scherzinger

7) Isla Fisher

8 ) Shakira

9) Christina Aguilera

10) Fearne Cotton

There has to be something wrong with a man when he doesn't include Keeley Hazell in his top 10. Plus having Nicole Scherzinger in there aswell, and no Megan Fox. I suppose it is all down to personal taste. Anyway, mine would be:

1) Keeley Hazell

2) Eva Wyrwal (look her up, you won't regret it!)

3) Anne Hathaway

4) Kate Beckinsale

5) Charlize Theron

6) Megan Fox

7) Jessica Alba

8 ) Kristen Bell

9) Scarlett Johanssen

10) Eva Mendes

I have had a kidney transplant just over a year ago now. My Dad was the donor so I was very fortunate.

It is a big issue though when it comes to the lack of kidneys. If I was fit and healthy and had two kidneys then yes I would give my kidney to someone else. Having been through dialysis myself I now know what it feels like and what it does to your body over the duration. The kidney I now have may not last very long either, so I'd be hoping that someone I don't know would possibly donate a kidney that matches me if anything ever does go wrong. Hopefully my current kidney will last for many years, but you just never know.

In my own case, I have Alports Syndrome which led to my renal failure. This means that if I have children they will have Alports Syndrome (female being the carrier, male being the sufferer generally). Therefore I could be relying on someone else to give them a kidney donation in the future. I would hope that someone would be kind enough to do so if the case ever came about.

I am not going to say it is an easy choice to give a kidney, yet I do feel it is an extremely overlooked problem. People all focus on Cancer, Aids and other "more important" illnesses. The fact is that having renal failure is a horrible thing to go through. It really damages your body and can lead to death. My lifespan will most likely have been shortened due to having renal failure, which isn't a nice thing to know. Yet that is the reality of it. I just hope that more people will start to donate. I just feel that too many people don't know anything about renal failure. Not through their own fault, yet due to the lack of exposure it gets due to other illnesses.

So very much prefer Hayden Panettiere, she is the hottest female on earth.

Whilst I agree that Claire-bear is very fit, sometimes I look at her and think she is going through that chubby child phase.....

I would love a piece of that. Body to die for and I bet she's a freak in the bed! I agree about the make-up though. She looks like most of the slappers you see on a night out with all that on, apart from the fact that she isn't some sea donkey underneath the make-up.

Its teh same in WoW. Hunters tend to be chosen by alot of kids and people with downs, which gives them a bad reputation, but the class is one of the most difficult to play/master.

Difficult to master?! Come on.....

I take it you have a Hunter.....

Why would anyone roll a huntard?!

Such a boring class and so easy to play. I mean really, you could go and have breakfast and a shower with auto-shoot on. It's just dull.....

http://www.wowwiki.com/Class is a good point of reference.

I think if I were playing seriously again though, I would take advantage of the Dual Spec feature that has recently been implemented into the game, and go with a Hybrid class that has a DPS and a healing tree.

Thanks rev will look into that then

Yep, it's a good idea to do so. I now have a paly that is both ret and holy. Makes it very easy to find groups for instances and gives me versatility for PvP. Have it on my DK (Unholy for PvP and Frost for tanking) and Mage (Frost for PvP and Arcane for PvE) too.

While I think it is good to get it, I do think it has further ruined the game.

Actually I just found a camera from my parents' house from a few years back. It's a Canon EOS 3000. Think that would be any good for a beginner photographer? I want the pictures to be sharp and colourful like the ones on here, so hopefully it can manage that.

Are there any cheap digital cameras available that someone starting off in photography (me) would be able to afford? I'd prefer it to be as cheap as possible and to have great quality pictures. This probably isn't very likely, but if someone knows of any cameras then please say.

100% although Villa are more important to me than England.