Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 6 Feb 2007 19:12 On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:34:07 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: >Eeyore wrote: >> >> unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>Eeyore wrote: >>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>> >>>>>Anyway that's only part of it. Any form of damage or contamination >>>>>that allows the receptacle to become carbonized can easily lead >>>>>to an electrical fire. >>>> >>>>In order for anything to carbonise it has to get hot. The BS1363 plug only carries 13A >>>>though a solid machined contact unlike the 15A you put through your bits of bent metal. >>> >>>>Ir doesn't get hot ! >>> >>>Contamination, such as getting wet, causes the demise of receptacles pronto. >> >> >> And how do propose they get wet ? In what way are UK sockets uniquely susceptible to this ? >> >> >> >>>Nearby lightning strikes cause arcing at the oddest places, another source of carbonization. >> >> >> You get more lightning in the USA AFAIK. >> >> >> >>>Let's talk a little about your "solid machined contact" in >>>your receptacles. >>> >>>1 spring action is required. >> >> >> That's in the socket part of course. >> >> >> >>>stamped properly tempered metal is more than adequate >> >> >> Adequate maybe. But not very rugged. >> >> >> >>>2 the price of machining is outrageous >> >> >> Somehow we manage. It's cheap for the Chinese to do it seems. >> >> >> >>>A standard 15 amp duplex receptacle is available in >>>the USA with a low end price of well under 1 US$. High >>>end decorative is around $35 which includes built in >>>surge suppression. >> >> >> You're now arguing in favour of inferior engineering on the basis of price ? > >How stupid *are* you? > >I won't buy and use a platinum hammer where a brass one will do. Not only do I think you incapable of proper utilization of any hammer, but I doubt that you would know about any differences between hammers either.
From: MassiveProng on 6 Feb 2007 19:14 On 6 Feb 2007 15:17:32 -0800, "Winfield Hill" <hill(a)rowland.org> Gave us: >On Jan 23, Eeyore wrote: >> Winfield Hill wrote: >>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>> h...(a)rowland.org wrote: >>>>>> h...(a)rowland.org wrote: >>>>>>> h...(a)rowland.org wrote: >>>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >>>>>>>>>>>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This >>>>>>>>>>>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress >>>>>>>>>>>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) >> >>>>>>>>>>> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, >>>>>>>>>>> but I never found out which newsgroup. >> >>>>>>>>>> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts >>>>>>>>>> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! >> >>>>>>>>> Good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still >>>>>>>>> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only >>>>>>>>> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's >>>>>>>>> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. >> >>>>>>>> Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. >> >>>>>>> Impressive, zoomed right past 12,000 without slowing, now >>>>>>> at 12130 posts and climbing towards 13000, going strong. >> >>>>>> Hmm, we're slowing down a bit folks! We're now at 12480 >>>>>> posts with 12500 in sight, but not so sure about 13000. >> >>>>> Merry Christmas, Win. :) >> >>>> Happy New Year Michael :) >> >>>> With this post we're only three away from breaking the >>>> 12500 post BARRIER. I know we can do it! >> >>> Now at 13950, still going strong! >> >> Past the 14000 barrier now ! > > Past the 16,000 barrier, good going! > Did I miss when y'all zoomed past 15,000? Jeezle Pete!
From: unsettled on 6 Feb 2007 20:41 T Wake wrote: > "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:87r6t27vpw.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eq9ru7$8ss_002(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>>In article <apydnSufhMo__FrYnZ2dnUVZ8sWhnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:eq79n9$8qk_008(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>>>In article <45C6525A.BB423643(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>There's a Cambridge Mass too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Son, that is a town; it is not a school. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>City actually. Same as ours. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think it's a town. I'd have to check what it's carter is. >>>>>>I don't remember a mayor of Cambridge. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Cambridge is a city in the Greater Boston area of Massachusetts, >>>>>>>United >>>>>> >>>>>>States. >>>>>> >>>>>>>It was named in honor of Cambridge, England. >>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge%2C_Massachusetts >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The city of Cambridge is an old English university town and the >>>>>> >>>>>>administrative >>>>>> >>>>>>>centre of the county of Cambridgeshire. >>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge >>>>>> >>>>>>The difference between town and city is the style of government. >>>>> >>>>>Do you think this applies universally? >>>> >>>>Here, it does. >>> >>>Can you see the contradiction in that phrase? >>> >>> >>>>The reason you three have hared off into some strange direction >>>>in this thread is Eeyore's suggestion that the reference to >>>>Cambridge might have been the Massachusetts town. It was not. >>>>If the guy had gone to one of the schools in Cambridge, Mass., >>>>he would not have written _at_ Cambridge; this is a unique >>>>phrasing in England and not done in the US. The guy would >>>>have acquired American phrasing and not British phrasing if >>>>he had gone to MIT or Harvard. >>> >>>Interesting line of conclusions. While it appears valid, it does suffer >>>from >>>the flaw that Habishi certainly did _not_ study at the University of >>>Cambridge. >>> >>>I know a few Americans who say they studied _at_ MIT or Harvard (or where >>>ever) so I remain unconvinced that the "at" is a unique indicator of >>>Britishness. >> >>At <institution name, or shortened form thereof> >> >>is both English and American. >> >>However, Cambridge not being an institution name in the US context >>implies that it must be the UK one. I'll side with BAH on this one, >>folks. However, my money's on it, the claim, being oxpoo. > > > I do not have a strong enough argument to disagree with BAH here and if > someone said they studied at Cambridge, I would (as would pretty much > everyone else in the world, I think) assume they meant the one in the UK. > > I am very unconvinced that the "at" alone is justification for that > assumption. > > However, I think we all agree that the chance of Habishi having attended > _any_ higher education establishment here, in the US or in India (as he > sometimes implies) is about the same as me being an eight foot tall red > indian-Russian. I wondered why you looked so familiar! >>Of course people who did go to 'the other place' all know that >>the correct name for it is Fenland Poly. > > > > LOL. > >
From: unsettled on 6 Feb 2007 20:49 MassiveProng wrote: > On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:34:07 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > Gave us: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Anyway that's only part of it. Any form of damage or contamination >>>>>>that allows the receptacle to become carbonized can easily lead >>>>>>to an electrical fire. >>>>> >>>>>In order for anything to carbonise it has to get hot. The BS1363 plug only carries 13A >>>>>though a solid machined contact unlike the 15A you put through your bits of bent metal. >>>> >>>>>Ir doesn't get hot ! >>>> >>>>Contamination, such as getting wet, causes the demise of receptacles pronto. >>> >>> >>>And how do propose they get wet ? In what way are UK sockets uniquely susceptible to this ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Nearby lightning strikes cause arcing at the oddest places, another source of carbonization. >>> >>> >>>You get more lightning in the USA AFAIK. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Let's talk a little about your "solid machined contact" in >>>>your receptacles. >>>> >>>>1 spring action is required. >>> >>> >>>That's in the socket part of course. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>stamped properly tempered metal is more than adequate >>> >>> >>>Adequate maybe. But not very rugged. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>2 the price of machining is outrageous >>> >>> >>>Somehow we manage. It's cheap for the Chinese to do it seems. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>A standard 15 amp duplex receptacle is available in >>>>the USA with a low end price of well under 1 US$. High >>>>end decorative is around $35 which includes built in >>>>surge suppression. >>> >>> >>>You're now arguing in favour of inferior engineering on the basis of price ? >> >>How stupid *are* you? >> >>I won't buy and use a platinum hammer where a brass one will do. > > > > Not only do I think you incapable of proper utilization of any > hammer, but I doubt that you would know about any differences between > hammers either. You're the textbook example of knowing nothing while relentlessly bragging about it.
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Feb 2007 07:45
In article <45C8A41B.8AA4DEB(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> >There's a Cambridge Mass too. >> >>>> >> >>>> Son, that is a town; it is not a school. >> >>> >> >>>City actually. Same as ours. >> >> >> >> I think it's a town. I'd have to check what it's carter is. >> >> I don't remember a mayor of Cambridge. >> >>> >> >>>Cambridge is a city in the Greater Boston area of Massachusetts, United >> >> States. >> >>>It was named in honor of Cambridge, England. >> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge%2C_Massachusetts >> >>> >> >>>The city of Cambridge is an old English university town and the >> >> administrative centre of the county of Cambridgeshire. >> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge >> >> >> >> The difference between town and city is the style of government. >> > >> >Do you think this applies universally? >> >> Here, it does. >> >> The reason you three have hared off into some strange direction >> in this thread is Eeyore's suggestion that the reference to >> Cambridge might have been the Massachusetts town. It was not. >> If the guy had gone to one of the schools in Cambridge, Mass., >> he would not have written _at_ Cambridge; this is a unique >> phrasing in England and not done in the US. The guy would >> have acquired American phrasing and not British phrasing if >> he had gone to MIT or Harvard. > >What a curious idea that someone's 'phrasing' as associated with the country >they studied in. It gives valuable clues. I had a telephone call asking personal questions for some survey. The introduction mentioned Princeton and was phrased in such a way to cause most people, who didn't pay attention to the prepositions used, to conclude that the survey was being done by Princeton University; instead, the caller was located in Princeton, NJ. /BAH |