Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:05:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham


You're an idiot if you have (keep) an ISP that limits the size of an
upload to Usenet.

Our company had to go to UL labs and teach them about HV testing.

Harmonization is correct, and is so for the greater part of those that
use Usenet. Your Olde English is just that... old. Outdated. Your
country should seriously consider catching up with the rest of the world,
instead of being bullheaded for the last 200 years since you got your
asses kicked out of our business.

Slow to change is quite indicative.

FatBytestard wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:05:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham

You're an idiot if you have (keep) an ISP that limits the size of an
upload to Usenet.

It has NOTHING to do with my ISP which is superb.

Graham

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:53:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



FatBytestard wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:05:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham

You're an idiot if you have (keep) an ISP that limits the size of an
upload to Usenet.

It has NOTHING to do with my ISP which is superb.

Graham

Ahhh. Then your inability to make a proper post to Usenet is firmly
rooted in your retarded choice of news client.

Do a little hunting, and you might find out what registry setting to
change to up that limit. D'OH!

FatBytestard wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
FatBytestard wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham

You're an idiot if you have (keep) an ISP that limits the size of an
upload to Usenet.

It has NOTHING to do with my ISP which is superb.

Graham

Ahhh. Then your inability to make a proper post to Usenet is firmly
rooted in your retarded choice of news client.

No, not that either AFAIK. Come on , try again.

Graham

FatBytestard wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:05:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:


Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham


Harmonization is correct, and is so for the greater part of those that
use Usenet. Your Olde English is just that... old. Outdated. Your
country should seriously consider catching up with the rest of the world,
instead of being bullheaded for the last 200 years since you got your
asses kicked out of our business.


That's rich from the country that still uses BTUs and all sorts of other ludicrous units.

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:13:41 +0000, richard
wrote:

FatBytestard wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:05:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:


Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham


Harmonization is correct, and is so for the greater part of those that
use Usenet. Your Olde English is just that... old. Outdated. Your
country should seriously consider catching up with the rest of the world,
instead of being bullheaded for the last 200 years since you got your
asses kicked out of our business.


That's rich from the country that still uses BTUs and all sorts of other ludicrous units.


For air conditioning, yes. Why say the unit is ludicrous? It is a
BRITISH invention.

I think you might have it ass backwards. I am from the USA. We use all
different units. Don't let your bias bend your brain. Ooops... too late.

FatBytestard wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:13:41 +0000, richard
wrote:

FatBytestard wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:05:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:


Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham


Harmonization is correct, and is so for the greater part of those that
use Usenet. Your Olde English is just that... old. Outdated. Your
country should seriously consider catching up with the rest of the world,
instead of being bullheaded for the last 200 years since you got your
asses kicked out of our business.


That's rich from the country that still uses BTUs and all sorts of other ludicrous units.

For air conditioning, yes. Why say the unit is ludicrous? It is a
BRITISH invention.

I think you might have it ass backwards. I am from the USA. We use all
different units. Don't let your bias bend your brain. Ooops... too late.

So why are you using obsolete British units ?

Graham

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:22:53 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



FatBytestard wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:13:41 +0000, richard
wrote:

FatBytestard wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:05:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:


Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham


Harmonization is correct, and is so for the greater part of those that
use Usenet. Your Olde English is just that... old. Outdated. Your
country should seriously consider catching up with the rest of the world,
instead of being bullheaded for the last 200 years since you got your
asses kicked out of our business.


That's rich from the country that still uses BTUs and all sorts of other ludicrous units.

For air conditioning, yes. Why say the unit is ludicrous? It is a
BRITISH invention.

I think you might have it ass backwards. I am from the USA. We use all
different units. Don't let your bias bend your brain. Ooops... too late.

So why are you using obsolete British units ?

---
For convenience, as bad as they may be, since that's we inherited.

We have entire industries using obsolete British units but, since
everyone knows that one BTU (British Thermal Unit) is defined as the
amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of liquid
water by one degree from 60° to 61° Fahrenheit at a constant pressure of
one atmosphere, I don't see why that would present a problem to you
since converting to SI should be straightforward enough to cause you
little grief.

Interestingly, I see that you Brits, (your government, actually)
although claiming to, haven't quite embraced the concept of being part
of the "United States of Europe" and, consequently, haven't embraced the
"Euro" as your standard of currency, so you're not quite decimal yet.

Why are you holding out?

JF

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


FatBytestard wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:13:41 +0000, richard
wrote:

FatBytestard wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:05:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:


Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham


Harmonization is correct, and is so for the greater part of those
that
use Usenet. Your Olde English is just that... old. Outdated. Your
country should seriously consider catching up with the rest of the
world,
instead of being bullheaded for the last 200 years since you got your
asses kicked out of our business.


That's rich from the country that still uses BTUs and all sorts of other
ludicrous units.

For air conditioning, yes. Why say the unit is ludicrous? It is a
BRITISH invention.

I think you might have it ass backwards. I am from the USA. We use all
different units. Don't let your bias bend your brain. Ooops... too late.

So why are you using obsolete British units ?

Graham

United Kingdom (only has a Queen) uses LITRES of fuel to drive Japanese cars
MILES and miles????

John G.

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:22:53 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



FatBytestard wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:13:41 +0000, richard
wrote:

FatBytestard wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:05:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:


Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham


Harmonization is correct, and is so for the greater part of those that
use Usenet. Your Olde English is just that... old. Outdated. Your
country should seriously consider catching up with the rest of the world,
instead of being bullheaded for the last 200 years since you got your
asses kicked out of our business.


That's rich from the country that still uses BTUs and all sorts of other ludicrous units.

For air conditioning, yes. Why say the unit is ludicrous? It is a
BRITISH invention.

I think you might have it ass backwards. I am from the USA. We use all
different units. Don't let your bias bend your brain. Ooops... too late.

So why are you using obsolete British units ?

Graham

There is a difference between obsolete and 'out of use'.

A difference you obviously have no grasp of.

There is also a difference between out of use and archaic.

Can you guess what category BTUs really falls into? I have my doubts.

FatBytestard wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:13:41 +0000, richard
wrote:


FatBytestard wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:05:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham

Harmonization is correct, and is so for the greater part of those that
use Usenet. Your Olde English is just that... old. Outdated. Your
country should seriously consider catching up with the rest of the world,
instead of being bullheaded for the last 200 years since you got your
asses kicked out of our business.


That's rich from the country that still uses BTUs and all sorts of other ludicrous units.



For air conditioning, yes. Why say the unit is ludicrous? It is a
BRITISH invention.

I think you might have it ass backwards. I am from the USA. We use all
different units. Don't let your bias bend your brain. Ooops... too late.

So you still use pounds and degrees fahrenheit - not to mention 16 oz pints.
You're the ones (to quote your words) who are seriously outdated - and who have everything "arse about face".
Hell, even one of your space probes failed because the lockheed engineers used poundals or some such obsolete abomination -
maybe a slug - lol

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:16:02 +0000, richard
wrote:

FatBytestard wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:13:41 +0000, richard
wrote:


FatBytestard wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:05:09 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Article on this famous UL test, now probably irrelevant due to
harmonisation with IEC.

Damn, too big again ( 1.26 MB )

Graham

Harmonization is correct, and is so for the greater part of those that
use Usenet. Your Olde English is just that... old. Outdated. Your
country should seriously consider catching up with the rest of the world,
instead of being bullheaded for the last 200 years since you got your
asses kicked out of our business.


That's rich from the country that still uses BTUs and all sorts of other ludicrous units.



For air conditioning, yes. Why say the unit is ludicrous? It is a
BRITISH invention.

I think you might have it ass backwards. I am from the USA. We use all
different units. Don't let your bias bend your brain. Ooops... too late.

So you still use pounds and degrees fahrenheit - not to mention 16 oz pints.
You're the ones (to quote your words) who are seriously outdated - and who have everything "arse about face".
Hell, even one of your space probes failed because the lockheed engineers used poundals or some such obsolete abomination -
maybe a slug - lol


No, idiot. It failed because it used kilograms, and the technician
filled the tank with pounds, which meant that it got less than half of
what it needed. This only proves that conversion to another standard
means that mistakes WILL be made. Some can be costly. The one where God
only put 1 gram of brain matter in your skull was costly for you.

In the scientific communities (not that you would know what that word
means), we use all manner of quantifier. Degrees Fahrenheit are used
primarily by the lay person, because generations of folk are familiar
with it. I am sure, however, that "familiar" is another word you have
problems with understanding.

I am quite sure that many in your lands are quite glad that they are
familiar with the technologies that we allowed you to have to protect
yourselves from attackers over the decades.

I think you have serious problems being able to "see the big picture".