On 8/3/2020 5:11 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 07:01:13 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 3/08/2020 2:58 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 11:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Terry Schwartz
wrote:

Is "reliablest" even a word?

Only in N. America - the country that invented the ghastly "normalcy"
in place of *normality* for no compelling reason whatsoever.


**Oh, my favourite US idiocy is: 'anesthesiologist'.

And, don't get me started on: 'burglarize' or 'aluminum'.

Aloominum they say. And "nucular" - Dubya in particular made me
shudder when he said that.


I think at least *some* Americanisation of spellings are OK, like
center, meter and *some* substitutions of s with z. Maybe there
are subtle differences in the way they are pronounced that are
lost on us non-native users.

However, I find it hard to condone the widespread
mispronunciation of proper names like Iraq as Eye-raq in modern
times. Maybe saying 'Eye-talian' in WWII was understandable, but
not in this age of instant global communication.

OK - let us discuss the "British U" such as in colo u r and so forth. Which has been around for a very long time. But for the purposes of this specious argument, let us agree on 300 years as an arbitrary figure.
a) Each printed U takes up space on paper, ink, space on the printing plate and so forth.
b) That space has an associated cost. Again, being arbitrary, let us agree that each one hundred Us are worth one British penny, then and now.
c) I believe that it would be fair to suggest that at least a billion extra Us were printed per year since 1700.

https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1700?amount=1

That first year would be £417 in 1700 (240 pence to the pound). Over the last 300 years, the average earned interest rate is about 4.5%.
Just for giggles, let us use that same £417 as a periodic deposit for the same 300 years. That is highly conservative as that £417 would be more like £26,271 today.



Care to guess what those Us cost the British and Brit-speak economies over the last 300 years?

https://www.calculator.net/future-va...it=0&x=52&y=13

$5,259,278,881.34 And that is only if the first-cost is *as little as * £417 *.

And you dare to criticize American spelling?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

In article ,
says...

OK - let us discuss the "British U" such as in colo u r and so forth. Which has been around for a very long time. But for the purposes of this specious argument, let us agree on 300 years as an arbitrary figure.
a) Each printed U takes up space on paper, ink, space on the printing plate and so forth.
b) That space has an associated cost. Again, being arbitrary, let us agree that each one hundred Us are worth one British penny, then and now.
c) I believe that it would be fair to suggest that at least a billion extra Us were printed per year since 1700.

https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1700?amount=1

That first year would be £417 in 1700 (240 pence to the pound). Over the last 300 years, the average earned interest rate is about 4.5%.
Just for giggles, let us use that same £417 as a periodic deposit for the same 300 years. That is highly conservative as that £417 would be more like £26,271 today.

Care to guess what those Us cost the British and Brit-speak economies over the last 300 years?

https://www.calculator.net/future-va...it=0&x=52&y=13

$5,259,278,881.34 And that is only if the first-cost is *as little as * £417 *.

And you dare to criticize American spelling?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

And now we can add rubbish math! (To which we would always add at least
an "s".)

Mike.

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 11:37:02 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 3/08/2020 11:35 am, John-Del wrote:
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 4:57:44 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Japanese cars don't rust (for
the most part). You're thinking of European cars. They rust.



Saying Japanese cars don't rust is equivalent to saying the earth is flat, and Toyotas are by far the worst of the bunch.

Google Tacoma frame rot. The entire frame must be replaced.


**Typical American crap construction. The Tocoma was not a Japanese
vehicle.

Clearly Toyota should have been taking more care with their American
workers.

How silly. There has never been any difference between American assembled Japanese cars and those assembled in Japan, or any other assy point around the world for that matter The Tacoma is a Toyota.

But your motivation hasn't escaped me. So, how about the 4Runner then?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jensen/.../#5f5939b77302

Every one built in Japan, ie NOT in America.

Or this link which describes Toyotas rusting away since the early 70s.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/car...ta-truck-rust/

The 1973 Toyta Corona that I owned rusted quite badly. Only 1000 were imported. No spare parts, and very shoddy design of the disk brakes. They worked, going forward, but they would eject the pads is you had to slam them on in re reverse. The emergency brakes were a joke, as well.

On 3/08/2020 11:06 pm, wrote:
OK - let us discuss the "British U" such as in colo u r and so forth. Which has been around for a very long time. But for the purposes of this specious argument, let us agree on 300 years as an arbitrary figure.
a) Each printed U takes up space on paper, ink, space on the printing plate and so forth.
b) That space has an associated cost. Again, being arbitrary, let us agree that each one hundred Us are worth one British penny, then and now.
c) I believe that it would be fair to suggest that at least a billion extra Us were printed per year since 1700.

https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1700?amount=1

That first year would be £417 in 1700 (240 pence to the pound). Over the last 300 years, the average earned interest rate is about 4.5%.
Just for giggles, let us use that same £417 as a periodic deposit for the same 300 years. That is highly conservative as that £417 would be more like £26,271 today.



Care to guess what those Us cost the British and Brit-speak economies over the last 300 years?

https://www.calculator.net/future-va...it=0&x=52&y=13

$5,259,278,881.34 And that is only if the first-cost is *as little as * £417 *.

And you dare to criticize American spelling?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


**Let's add all those idiotic American words, like 'burglarize' (the
correct word is 'burgle' (that is a phenomenal FOUR extra letters for
the idiotic American spelling), 'anethesiologist', rather than the
correct 'anaesthetist' and so on. Americans tend to use a lot of surplus
words to describe simple things. 'Absolutely' rather than 'yes' springs
to mind.

Plug that into your calculator.

One concession I will make to Americans' desire to make words simpler is
that surrounding the pronunciation of 'lieutenant'. The American
pronunciation does make sense.

-

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 8/4/2020 1:21 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

One concession I will make to Americans' desire to make words simpler is
that surrounding the pronunciation of 'lieutenant'. The American
pronunciation does make sense.

-

Their 'El-Tee' is shorter too.

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:

'Absolutely' rather than 'yes' springs to mind.

Oh that is *super* annoying.

The latest trend in avoiding using "very" in its correct context

--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk

On 4/08/2020 6:38 am, Mike wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:

'Absolutely' rather than 'yes' springs to mind.

Oh that is *super* annoying.

The latest trend in avoiding using "very" in its correct context


**Don't get me started. The term 'very unique' springs to mind. YIKES!

Then again: I watch 'Escape to the Country' from British TV. Every time
some nong says: "Oh, that is very homely". I just want to scream.

Look up 'homely' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 8/4/2020 3:17 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/08/2020 6:38 am, Mike wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:

'Absolutely' rather than 'yes' springs to mind.

Oh that is *super* annoying.

The latest trend in avoiding using "very" in its correct context


**Don't get me started. The term 'very unique' springs to mind. YIKES!

Then again: I watch 'Escape to the Country' from British TV. Every time
some nong says: "Oh, that is very homely". I just want to scream.

Look up 'homely' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

Here in multi-racial multi-cultural India, arranged marriage is
the norm among the majority races (not with my own minority
people). I'm both amused and aghast to see matrimonial ads in
newspapers and magazines almost invariably describing a
prospective bride as 'homely'.

Indian English is based on British English but I didn't know the
Brits used 'homely' the same way.

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Every time some nong says: "Oh, that is very homely". I just want to
scream.
Look up 'homely' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

That's because it's a programme made by brits, for brits, and that's the
way we use the word, to describe homes. Feel free to export your tv
shows to us and use words the way you use them .... personally I've
never heard "homely" used to describe a person.

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 06:06:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

OK - let us discuss the "British U" such as in colo u r and so forth. Which has been around for a very long time. But for the purposes of this specious argument, let us agree on 300 years as an arbitrary figure.
a) Each printed U takes up space on paper, ink, space on the printing plate and so forth.
b) That space has an associated cost. Again, being arbitrary, let us agree that each one hundred Us are worth one British penny, then and now.
c) I believe that it would be fair to suggest that at least a billion extra Us were printed per year since 1700.

https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1700?amount=1

That first year would be £417 in 1700 (240 pence to the pound). Over the last 300 years, the average earned interest rate is about 4.5%.
Just for giggles, let us use that same £417 as a periodic deposit for the same 300 years. That is highly conservative as that £417 would be more like £26,271 today.



Care to guess what those Us cost the British and Brit-speak economies over the last 300 years?

https://www.calculator.net/future-va...it=0&x=52&y=13

$5,259,278,881.34 And that is only if the first-cost is *as little as * £417 *.

And you dare to criticize American spelling?

Wow! So *that* was how the Americans were able to overtake the British
economically over the course of the 1920s? Astounding!

wrote:

OK - let us discuss the "British U" such as in colo u r and so forth.

The only reason you don't put U's in "color", is because you over-use
them in "nucular" god knows what you do with all the spare E's?

On 4/08/2020 2:26 pm, Pimpom wrote:
On 8/4/2020 3:17 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/08/2020 6:38 am, Mike wrote:
In article ,
Trevor WilsonÂ* wrote:

'Absolutely' rather than 'yes' springs to mind.

Oh that is *super* annoying.

The latest trend in avoiding using "very" in its correct context


**Don't get me started. The term 'very unique' springs to mind. YIKES!

Then again: I watch 'Escape to the Country' from British TV. Every time
some nong says: "Oh, that is very homely". I just want to scream.

Look up 'homely' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

Here in multi-racial multi-cultural India, arranged marriage is the norm
among the majority races (not with my own minority people). I'm both
amused and aghast to see matrimonial ads in newspapers and magazines
almost invariably describing a prospective bride as 'homely'.

**YIKES!


Indian English is based on British English but I didn't know the Brits
used 'homely' the same way.

**I've seen hundreds of episodes of Escape to the Country. Only once,
have I heard the correct word: 'Homey' used. Even from seemly well
educated Poms, the term: 'homely' is most often used.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 4/08/2020 5:50 pm, Andy Burns wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Every time some nong says: "Oh, that is very homely". I just want to
scream.
Look up 'homely' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

That's because it's a programme made by brits, for brits, and that's the
way we use the word, to describe homes.Â* Feel free to export your tv
shows to us and use words the way you use them .... personally I've
never heard "homely" used to describe a person.

**Sorry, but I am unable to access the Oxford English Dictionary. I went
for second best:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...english/homely

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic.../english/homey

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Every time some nong says: "Oh, that is very homely". I just want
to scream. Look up 'homely' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

That's because it's a programme made by brits, for brits, and that's
the way we use the word, to describe homes.Â* Feel free to export your
tv shows to us and use words the way you use them .... personally I've
never heard "homely" used to describe a person.

**Sorry, but I am unable to access the Oxford English Dictionary.

Let me help you out ... British usage of the word is in sense 1 or sense 2a

================================

homely, adj.

Etymology: home + -ly suffix compare Middle Dutch heimelīke, heimelijk

1.

Of or belonging to a household or home. Also: of or belonging to a
person's own country or native land. rare after 16th cent.

2.

a. Characteristic or suggestive of a home (esp. a modest one) or of
domestic life; ordinary, everyday; simple, plain, unsophisticated;
rough, rustic. In later use also (chiefly British, of a place or its
atmosphere, etc.): cosy, comfortable.

b. Of a person: of humble background; having a plain or simple nature;
unsophisticated; rustic.

c. Esp. of a person: of plain appearance; unattractive. Now North American.

3.

a. With €*to, with. Of a person or a person's manner: familiar; friendly;
intimate. rare after 17th cent.

b. Chiefly Scottish. Kind, kindly; courteous. Now rare.

c. Of things: familiar; well-known. Now rare.

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 4:41:10 AM UTC-4, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

OK - let us discuss the "British U" such as in colo u r and so forth.
The only reason you don't put U's in "color", is because you over-use
them in "nucular" god knows what you do with all the spare E's?

Keep in mind that the Average American:

Does not have a college education, including an Associate Degree (60%).
Does not have a passport (58%).
Speaks one language €“ badly (74%).
Has never traveled voluntarily more than 200 miles from his/her birthplace (57%).
Has never visited a foreign country, not even Mexico or Canada (71%).
Cannot name the Speaker of the House, even today (82%)
Cannot name the three branches of government (64%)
Cannot read at a college level (83%)
Cannot read for content (54%). This person cannot follow written-only directions.
60% of American Households do not buy any book in a year.
Does not believe in Evolution (42% creationism, 32% evolution, 26% no opinion).

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 08:50:25 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Every time some nong says: "Oh, that is very homely". I just want to
scream.
Look up 'homely' in the dictionary, you stupid poms.

That's because it's a programme made by brits, for brits, and that's the
way we use the word, to describe homes. Feel free to export your tv
shows to us and use words the way you use them .... personally I've
never heard "homely" used to describe a person.

Homely is used in N. America as a uphamism for ugly. Usually applied
to young girls. In English English it just means cozy and comfortable
and is only applied to residential dwellings.

Homely is used in N. America as a uphamism for ugly. Usually applied
to young girls. In English English it just means cozy and comfortable
and is only applied to residential dwellings.

That would be euphemism. Which is also an incorrect use of the word. Homely in the US is the functional equivalent of plain, even ugly. Which is its direct meaning.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/homely

However, a true euphemism would be something like "lacks prettiness" or "she does not present well" as applied to a young girl.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/euphemism

Funny thing: The average native English speaker recognizes about 20,000 words, and uses about 5,000. College graduates roughly double the recognition number and the use number. This against an estimated 1,022,000 words (including obsolete words, derivatives and jargon) in the English Language, and 171,476 words in current use (OED).

Guys and gals: Words are tools, often weapons. Working with dull blades is dangerous - to the user and others as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On 4/08/2020 10:19 pm, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 4:41:10 AM UTC-4, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

OK - let us discuss the "British U" such as in colo u r and so forth.
The only reason you don't put U's in "color", is because you over-use
them in "nucular" god knows what you do with all the spare E's?

Keep in mind that the Average American:

Does not have a college education, including an Associate Degree (60%).
Does not have a passport (58%).
Speaks one language €“ badly (74%).
Has never traveled voluntarily more than 200 miles from his/her birthplace (57%).
Has never visited a foreign country, not even Mexico or Canada (71%).
Cannot name the Speaker of the House, even today (82%)
Cannot name the three branches of government (64%)
Cannot read at a college level (83%)
Cannot read for content (54%). This person cannot follow written-only directions.
60% of American Households do not buy any book in a year.
Does not believe in Evolution (42% creationism, 32% evolution, 26% no opinion).


**Don't forget the most terrifying ones:

87% believe in the existence of God.
62,979,879 Americans voted for Trump. [Shakes head]
30% of adults Americans own guns.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 2020/08/04 5:19 a.m., wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 4:41:10 AM UTC-4, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

OK - let us discuss the "British U" such as in colo u r and so forth.
The only reason you don't put U's in "color", is because you over-use
them in "nucular" god knows what you do with all the spare E's?

Keep in mind that the Average American:

Does not have a college education, including an Associate Degree (60%).
Does not have a passport (58%).
Speaks one language €“ badly (74%).
Has never traveled voluntarily more than 200 miles from his/her birthplace (57%).
Has never visited a foreign country, not even Mexico or Canada (71%).
Cannot name the Speaker of the House, even today (82%)
Cannot name the three branches of government (64%)
Cannot read at a college level (83%)
Cannot read for content (54%). This person cannot follow written-only directions.
60% of American Households do not buy any book in a year.
Does not believe in Evolution (42% creationism, 32% evolution, 26% no opinion).

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


from a survey in 2016 (it appears)

https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycen...-is-declining/

John :-#)#

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 06:33:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Homely is used in N. America as a uphamism for ugly. Usually applied
to young girls. In English English it just means cozy and comfortable
and is only applied to residential dwellings.

That would be euphemism.

That's what I typed in! The spell-checker in my Agent newsreader
(created by the American corp, Forte) changed it to 'uphamism' for
reasons only know to itself.

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:34:27 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 06:33:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Homely is used in N. America as a uphamism for ugly. Usually applied
to young girls. In English English it just means cozy and comfortable
and is only applied to residential dwellings.

That would be euphemism.
That's what I typed in! The spell-checker in my Agent newsreader
(created by the American corp, Forte) changed it to 'uphamism' for
reasons only know to itself.

Why do I very much doubt that? Keep in mind that "Uphamism" is a (forgive the term) Urban-Slang term not much heard or seen outside the ghetto. If that is your goal, go for it. But, at the very least, own it.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

30% of adults Americans own guns.

Yep. I do as well. And I am quite adept at their use. Give me any (Civilian) long-gun, and about 10-20 sight-in rounds, and I will be consistently within 10 mm at 100 meters. Give me any (Civilian) hand-gun and I will be the same under the same conditions at about 10 meters.

At the same time, the only legitimate home-defense weapon is a shotgun. Care to understand why?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On 5/08/2020 9:16 am, wrote:

30% of adults Americans own guns.

Yep. I do as well. And I am quite adept at their use. Give me any (Civilian) long-gun, and about 10-20 sight-in rounds, and I will be consistently within 10 mm at 100 meters. Give me any (Civilian) hand-gun and I will be the same under the same conditions at about 10 meters.

**Meh. I SCUBA dive, abseil, ride my bikes and do other stuff. Sucking
up lead fumes does nothing to excite me.


At the same time, the only legitimate home-defense weapon is a shotgun. Care to understand why?


**Doesn't matter. Self defence using a firearm is largely mythical.

And that is the problem with many Americans. They suffer mass paranoid
delusions. No other civilised nation has employed the failed experiment
of allowing civilians to be so heavily armed.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 2020/08/04 5:50 p.m., Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 5/08/2020 9:16 am, wrote:

30% of adults Americans own guns.

Yep. I do as well. And I am quite adept at their use. Give me any
(Civilian) long-gun, and about 10-20 sight-in rounds, and I will be
consistently within 10 mm at 100 meters. Give me any (Civilian)
hand-gun and I will be the same under the same conditions at about 10
meters.

**Meh. I SCUBA dive, abseil, ride my bikes and do other stuff. Sucking
up lead fumes does nothing to excite me.


At the same time, the only legitimate home-defense weapon is a
shotgun. Care to understand why?


**Doesn't matter. Self defence using a firearm is largely mythical.

And that is the problem with many Americans. They suffer mass paranoid
delusions. No other civilised nation has employed the failed experiment
of allowing civilians to be so heavily armed.



Switzerland? However everyone went through serious training. It seems
that to qualify in many of the states you just have to be breathing -
not even that if the buyer is using a dead person's ID...

However in many cases where US homeowners are armed the folks that break
in end up using those weapons against them.

(from 2014)

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-safer/284022/

Now, if the CDC was ALLOWED to collect statistics on gun violence -
which I think they are now(?) - then perhaps some answers could be given
that weren't from gun nuts and no gun nuts.

As a point of clarity, I like small bore rifles, and sell arcade games
that use guns. I just think that carrying them for 'self-defense' is
stupid and the western marshals (and town councils) of the 1800s agreed,
banning weapons from their towns. You checked them in when you arrived,
and returned when leaving town. Didn't always work, but what does?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-t...ve-mo_b_956035


John

On 5/08/2020 11:12 am, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/08/04 5:50 p.m., Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 5/08/2020 9:16 am, wrote:

30% of adults Americans own guns.

Yep. I do as well. And I am quite adept at their use. Give me any
(Civilian) long-gun, and about 10-20 sight-in rounds, and I will be
consistently within 10 mm at 100 meters. Give me any (Civilian)
hand-gun and I will be the same under the same conditions at about 10
meters.

**Meh. I SCUBA dive, abseil, ride my bikes and do other stuff. Sucking
up lead fumes does nothing to excite me.


At the same time, the only legitimate home-defense weapon is a
shotgun. Care to understand why?


**Doesn't matter. Self defence using a firearm is largely mythical.

And that is the problem with many Americans. They suffer mass paranoid
delusions. No other civilised nation has employed the failed
experiment of allowing civilians to be so heavily armed.



Switzerland?

**Not the same thing. Points:

* They're not civilians.
* They are only allowed to carry them in the streets under very strict
conditions.
* Sales of firearms must be registered with the government.



However everyone went through serious training. It seems
that to qualify in many of the states you just have to be breathing -
not even that if the buyer is using a dead person's ID...

**Yep. It's a huge sad, tragic joke, perpetuated by the NRA and the
firearms manufacturers. Americans are too dumb to realise that the
10,000 Americans that are murdered each year is an appalling example of
bad public policy.


However in many cases where US homeowners are armed the folks that break
in end up using those weapons against them.

(from 2014)

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-safer/284022/

**Of course. Many Americans fail to secure their firearms properly. You
can't shoot an intruder when you're asleep.



Now, if the CDC was ALLOWED to collect statistics on gun violence -
which I think they are now(?) - then perhaps some answers could be given
that weren't from gun nuts and no gun nuts.

**The NRA and gutless politicians who kow-tow to their craven, money
grubbing ways would never allow that.


As a point of clarity, I like small bore rifles, and sell arcade games
that use guns. I just think that carrying them for 'self-defense' is
stupid and the western marshals (and town councils) of the 1800s agreed,
banning weapons from their towns. You checked them in when you arrived,
and returned when leaving town. Didn't always work, but what does?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-t...ve-mo_b_956035

**I rather think that we, here in Australia, have gun control law
settings pretty close to OK.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 5:41:10 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/08/2020 10:19 pm, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 4:41:10 AM UTC-4, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

OK - let us discuss the "British U" such as in colo u r and so forth.
The only reason you don't put U's in "color", is because you over-use
them in "nucular" god knows what you do with all the spare E's?

Keep in mind that the Average American:

Does not have a college education, including an Associate Degree (60%).
Does not have a passport (58%).
Speaks one language €“ badly (74%).
Has never traveled voluntarily more than 200 miles from his/her birthplace (57%).
Has never visited a foreign country, not even Mexico or Canada (71%).
Cannot name the Speaker of the House, even today (82%)
Cannot name the three branches of government (64%)
Cannot read at a college level (83%)
Cannot read for content (54%). This person cannot follow written-only directions.
60% of American Households do not buy any book in a year.
Does not believe in Evolution (42% creationism, 32% evolution, 26% no opinion).

**Don't forget the most terrifying ones:

87% believe in the existence of God.
62,979,879 Americans voted for Trump. [Shakes head]

After Nov 2020, it was at 74.2 million but then Biden had something for 'em..

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 2:36:58 PM UTC-4, Martin James Smith wrote:
Hi all,

Say I wanted to buy the most reliable new compact car on the market
right now, the one least likely to ever break down on me in the
future, what would it be?

cheers,

MS
Is long term reliability the only criteria? If so, I suggest toyota corolla or prius hybrid.
I recently went through a new vehicle search and reliability, safety, fuel efficiency , usable space and creature comforts were my primary criteria (roughly in that order). I consulted lots of different reviews and tried to get repair types and numbers. I ended up getting a toyota highlander hybrid limited. (@ 36 MPG). The subaru ascent and audi q5 (and 7) were fairly serious contenders. I did look at hundi and kia (sorento). They both got high marks as well but no hybrid models. Same for the subaru ascent. In the end, hybrid/fuel efficiency sorta drove my thinking.
I did look at e-vehicles but from my perspective, they arn't 'quite there yet'...

I did drive a 2021 Prius as a test (as long a I was looking). That is why I endorse it.
Now if you are a DIY repair person, a hybrid may be out of your comfort zone. I have been downloading the toyota FSMs for my vehicle for the last 24 hrs...trying to understand the basics of the propulsion system and even found a crude simulink model of the electronic drive - ICE tandem to play with..
Lots of computer power in a hybrid, and being a CE & EE, I am hoping they employed good sw rel and defect detection practices in their design (Since I teach this stuff I am always a bit curious how companies do it).
If an EMP hits, I'll be going nowhere but I'll take my chances.....
good luck
J

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 8:43:18 PM UTC-4, Tim Schwartz wrote:
On 8/1/2020 6:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 2/08/2020 3:53 am, Chuck wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 13:14:41 -0700, John Robertson
wrote:

On 2020/07/31 11:59 a.m., Terry Schwartz wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 1:36:58 PM UTC-5, Martin James Smith
wrote:
Hi all,

Say I wanted to buy the most reliable new compact car on the market
right now, the one least likely to ever break down on me in the
future, what would it be?

cheers,

MS

Is "reliablest" even a word?


How is the Lada doing these days? I recall when everyone was talking
about the little Russian car...

John ;-#)#
When I was in Iceland in 2000, there were quite a few Ladas on the
road plus Lada Nivas (a sturdy 4 wheel drive jeep-like vehicle.) A
documentarian,who filmed on the country's glaciers, claimed they were
far more reliable than Jeeps.


**Yeah, well, that doesn't mean much. Jeeps are always at or near the
bottom of the list in reliability surveys. They often swap positions
with Fiat and Alfa.

Well, now that FIAT owns Chrysler who owns Jeep, some Jeeps (I believe
the Renegade in the US market) are MADE by FIAT, - in Italy, and shares
a platform with one of the FIAT 500 SUV's, so why wouldn't Jeep be right
up there with FIAT?

Best regards,
Tim Schwartz
Bristol Electronics
I've owned 4 jeeps (grand Cherokees) over the last 25 years. Each model suffered from a unique set of component reliability issues...took me a while to finally ditch them. I live in the rust belt and was appalled to see my last vehicle significantly eaten away by rust in combination with nagging brake issues and the infamous death wobble (DW) due to their 'unique' front steering design.
An interesting story - a few years after Daimler bought Chrysler I was at the dealer parts desk getting some factory only fasteners and crankshaft position sensor. The parts fellow had a hell of a time finding the right fasteners in the system. He related the story to me that one of the first things Daimler did was look across all the Chrysler vehicles and inventoried the fastener types. Something on the order of 150K+ different ones. To save a bunch of money, Daimler standardized the fasteners across all the products down to something like 30K (numbers aren't accurate but the percentage reduction is, afaicr).

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 8:19:13 AM UTC-4, Peter W. wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 4:41:10 AM UTC-4, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

OK - let us discuss the "British U" such as in colo u r and so forth.
The only reason you don't put U's in "color", is because you over-use
them in "nucular" god knows what you do with all the spare E's?
Keep in mind that the Average American:

Does not have a college education, including an Associate Degree (60%).
Does not have a passport (58%).
Speaks one language €“ badly (74%).
Has never traveled voluntarily more than 200 miles from his/her birthplace (57%).
Has never visited a foreign country, not even Mexico or Canada (71%).
Cannot name the Speaker of the House, even today (82%)
Cannot name the three branches of government (64%)
Cannot read at a college level (83%)
Cannot read for content (54%). This person cannot follow written-only directions.
60% of American Households do not buy any book in a year.
Does not believe in Evolution (42% creationism, 32% evolution, 26% no opinion).
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Am curious - can you please cite the source and year of these statistics?
thanks
J

The internet is your friend.

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-l...tion/by/state/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc...h=75d31c733c16
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...ttainment.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane...h=48f4c78c2898
https://www.wyliecomm.com/2020/11/wh...literacy-rate/

There area many other sources - but the US Census is the most comprehensive.. The key that obscures the statistics are that in some categories such as travel, trips are counted, not individuals in some counts. Example: 10% of all Americans traveled overseas for any reason in 2019. No, There were about 30,000,000 trips taken in 2019. By about 14,100,000 individuals. So, less than 5% in total. And, make sure that the count includes only Americans, not visitors. First, visitors and naturalized Americans tend to travel more, have far better educations and more languages than native-born Americans.. So a population with a high level of naturalized Americans will 'look better' that one that that is mostly native-born.

So, one has to read through an entire source to make sure that what is actually being counted is what is wanted to be counted.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On Friday, January 8, 2021 at 12:52:56 PM UTC-5, Peter W. wrote:
The internet is your friend.

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-l...tion/by/state/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc...h=75d31c733c16
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...ttainment.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane...h=48f4c78c2898
https://www.wyliecomm.com/2020/11/wh...literacy-rate/

There area many other sources - but the US Census is the most comprehensive. The key that obscures the statistics are that in some categories such as travel, trips are counted, not individuals in some counts. Example: 10% of all Americans traveled overseas for any reason in 2019. No, There were about 30,000,000 trips taken in 2019. By about 14,100,000 individuals. So, less than 5% in total. And, make sure that the count includes only Americans, not visitors. First, visitors and naturalized Americans tend to travel more, have far better educations and more languages than native-born Americans.. So a population with a high level of naturalized Americans will 'look better' that one that that is mostly native-born.

So, one has to read through an entire source to make sure that what is actually being counted is what is wanted to be counted.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Thank you. I found the article about literacy interesting. I didn't know how bad a shape the country is in.
I also found it a little amusing that the article title uses the words Literacy Rate. Rate means 'something' per unit of time. All of the data that was presented is a sampling done at a specific point in time. They acknowledge that this sampling is done every 10 years but the data comparisons do not show increasing/decreasing values per unit of time, e.g. 10 years. e.g. they did not correlate the data over a time period. Could it be the people who are (allegedly) literate above and 8th grade level did not accurately title the article???
From my perspective, the concept of rate is presented somewhere between 7-9th grade science classes and definitely in a high school physics class. Then again, I believe HS physics in today's HS is (still) an elective, and many ppl don't take it because it is 'too hard'.....
The graph at the end that compares literacy competence by country make me wonder how the data was normalized to arrive at the generalized literacy score? Is there some standard somewhere that says this document (in any language) is the basis for assessing reading comprehension? Well, I guess that is more of an OT thread and subject to some google searches.
Thanks
J

Rate: noun
1. a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against some other quantity or measure.
"the crime rate rose by 26 percent"

So:

The Literacy *Rate* would be a level of literacy against the total. So, if, of 100 individuals 12 are able to read and write at a college level, that Literacy Rate would be 12%. If that Rate changes year-on-year, the Rate would change by some percentage measured against the former year, and against whatever baseline is used - year 1, if you will.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA