"Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:16 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote:

On Nov 5, 4:16 pm, Steve Firth wrote:

There is nothing at the foot of that page saying £7.99.

There are three links as stated.

What you stated was "For a start you clearly didn't look at the foot
of the page where the leads are priced at £7.99 each."

Nothing about any links.

Oh FFS are you really as stupid as you make out? The text states that the
devices are available at the prices I stated and links to the site selling
the cables.


Lets's see. To quote from your post:

http://www.techradar.com/news/comput...o-know-1106884

Is all lies, then?

it doesn't say what you seem to think it says. For a start you clearly
didn't look at the foot of the page where the leads are priced at £7.99
each.

View that page, view source, ctrl-f "7.99". Gues what. There is no
such text on that page.

So you keep repeating. However the text was there and I quoted that text.


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Nov 6, 2:25*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote:









On Nov 5, 8:16 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote:

On Nov 5, 4:16 pm, Steve Firth wrote:

There is nothing at the foot of that page saying £7.99.

There are three links as stated.

What you stated was "For a start you clearly didn't look at the foot
of the page where the leads are priced at £7.99 each."

Nothing about any links.

Oh FFS are you really as stupid as you make out? The text states that the
devices are available at the prices I stated and links to the site selling
the cables.

Lets's see. To quote from your post:

http://www.techradar.com/news/comput...htning-connect....

Is all lies, then?

it doesn't say what you seem to think it says. For a start you clearly
didn't look at the foot of the page where the leads are priced at £7..99
each.

View that page, view source, ctrl-f "7.99". Gues what. There is no
such text on that page.

So you keep repeating. However the text was there and I quoted that text.

A very conveniently unverifiable assertion.

I'll leave it to the audience to decide.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote:
[snip]

He'll deny it, of course, and call us both liars, etc., ...

How inverted your world is, denying what was on the page was your "thing"
not mine. Similarly denying that Apple ship free uSB leads with their
products was also your thing as you insisted that owners of iOS devices
need to buy expensive leads to use their devices.

You get called a liar when you tell lies.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
I'd still like to know who advises the AA and any peer reviewed papers
on the problem...

I would expect the AA are the ones advising themselves. They do have
nearly a hundred years of experience at fixing vehicles at the side of
the road, after all. They also have contacts in the manufacturing side.

They don't publish their stuff, because it's commercially sensitive and
the RAC do the same.


I wouldn't have thought this was anywhere near "commercial sensitive"
it'd have thought it ' d rather open info after all its hardly rocket
science..

I wouldn't event want to try to guess the reasoning behind anyone
deciding what is commercially sensitive and what isn't. Possibly having
a better record at doing jump starts is vital to their business model.
Who knows?


Well a lot of firms do them every day up and down the highways ..

I've yet to read of any technically reasoned paper why this may be a
problem..

I did some tests a some while ago with a storage scope connected across
the vehicle electrical system under varying conditions of battery flat,
half charged and fully charged, and only in the flat state was there a
pulse of higher volts when the battery was disconnected. I presume that
to be the time for the magnetic field to weaken in the rotor of the
alternator and or a small time delay whilst the regulator gets its act
together to correct its output whilst under load, but I'd also expect
any adequately designed car electrical system for this event to be taken
care off...

That's as may be and things may have changed since....

In the '70s, when I was living on a boat, relying on the 12 Volt system
for light, pumping and such, as were many others that I knew, I had a
dynamo, which lasted forever, while putting out 15 amps all day. Others
had alternators, which would put out 30 amps, which they had to replace
frequently, due to dodgy connections to the battery causing (We assumed)
voltage spikes which blew the rectifier diodes.


Diodes have moved on a bit since then too. They have them at megawatt
levels now, electrical rail traction, AC to DC inverters for
supergrid's...

This was in the days before we had voltage critical ECUs attached to
everything including the headlight switch, so there was nothing else to
affect with a spike of less than 48 volts or so..

Well systems should expect that sort of interruption and electrical
noise..
--
Tony Sayer

"Man at B&Q" wrote:

So you keep repeating. However the text was there and I quoted that text.

A very conveniently unverifiable assertion.

No you idiot the assertion is easily checked and you responded to the post
containing the quoted text. There's yeast that sneers at your intellectual
achievement.

I'll leave it to the audience to decide.

Given that you are declaring in another post that I can see content that
you can't because you have blocked web content, the "audience" can decide.
Unless of course by "audience" you mean "triumvirate of ****wits".

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Nov 6, 2:54*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote:
[snip]



He'll deny it, of course, and call us both liars, etc., ...

How inverted your world is, denying what was on the page was your "thing"
not mine.

I merely pointed out the truth as found when I viewde the website you
referred to.

Similarly denying that Apple ship free uSB leads with their
products was also your thing

Liar.

as you insisted that owners of iOS devices
need to buy expensive leads to use their devices.

Liar.

You get called a liar when you tell lies.

In that case: Liar!

MBQ

On Nov 6, 3:18*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote:

So you keep repeating. However the text was there and I quoted that text.

"Man at B&Q" wrote:


Liar.

MBQ

I agree.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:02:29 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

Well systems should expect that sort of interruption and electrical
noise..

Indeed they should, there has been an ISO standard on this requirement (ISO
7637) since 1990 and I think there is an SAE (US) standard that predates that by
a few years


--

In message

g, Steve Firth writes
"Man at B&Q" wrote:
[snip]

He'll deny it, of course, and call us both liars, etc., ...

How inverted your world is, denying what was on the page was your "thing"
not mine. Similarly denying that Apple ship free uSB leads with their
products was also your thing as you insisted that owners of iOS devices
need to buy expensive leads to use their devices.

You get called a liar when you tell lies.

Could you just repeat that in dense's direction please?


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message
, Steve Firth writes
"Man at B&Q" wrote:
[snip]

He'll deny it, of course, and call us both liars, etc., ...

How inverted your world is, denying what was on the page was your "thing"
not mine. Similarly denying that Apple ship free uSB leads with their
products was also your thing as you insisted that owners of iOS devices
need to buy expensive leads to use their devices.

You get called a liar when you tell lies.

Could you just repeat that in dense's direction please?

Probably with as much effect. Dense and B&Q seem cut from the same
threadbare cloth.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Is there anything else you don't understand other than the word "never"?
Ah yes, everything.

One thing I don't understand is

.... everything.

why your

"you're", you're welcome.

almost as much of a pedant as Alex Heney, although unlike him you lack any
intelligence whatsoever.


YAWN Your constant claims that everyone who points out that you're a
drooling, knuckle dragging moron lacks intelligence would be amusing,
were you not quite so pathetic.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:49:36 -0000, Steve Firth
wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

Is it too complicated for you? You stick to the Mickey Mouse OS, there
there.

Since when has UNIX been a "Mickey mouse OS"?

Mac OS. Not unix. I don't care what's underneath, the top end is Mac OS.

Stupid Phucker. MacOS is UNIX.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:14:06 -0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Is there anything else you don't understand other than the word "never"?
Ah yes, everything.

One thing I don't understand is

... everything.

How childish of you yet again.

why your

"you're", you're welcome.

**** off typo pedant.

almost as much of a pedant as Alex Heney, although unlike him you lack any
intelligence whatsoever.

YAWN Your constant claims that everyone who points out that you're a
drooling, knuckle dragging moron lacks intelligence would be amusing,
were you not quite so pathetic.

Why don't you point out WHY you think what I say is wrong, instead of just writing the same old ****ty insults every time?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Dijon vu: the same mustard as before.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:14:06 -0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:49:36 -0000, Steve Firth
wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

Is it too complicated for you? You stick to the Mickey Mouse OS, there
there.

Since when has UNIX been a "Mickey mouse OS"?

Mac OS. Not unix. I don't care what's underneath, the top end is Mac OS.

Stupid Phucker. MacOS is UNIX.

What part of "I don't care what's underneath, the top end is Mac OS" you dumbass pig?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A great way to lose weight is to eat naked in front of a mirror. Restaurants will almost always throw you out before you can eat too much.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:14:06 -0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
[snip]

One thing I don't understand is

... everything.

How childish of you yet again.

Everyone who doesn't agree with you is "childish" in your distorted
world PHucker, no doubt it's a comment that you hear every day - Oh look
those quotes in your sig are childish, Oh look your foot stamping about
driving is childish, Oh look your attempts at photography are
childish... so it goes.

why your

"you're", you're welcome.

**** off typo pedant.

That wasn't a "typo" it was a demonstration of your ignorance.

almost as much of a pedant as Alex Heney, although unlike him you lack any
intelligence whatsoever.

YAWN Your constant claims that everyone who points out that you're a
drooling, knuckle dragging moron lacks intelligence would be amusing,
were you not quite so pathetic.

Why don't you point out WHY you think what I say is wrong, instead of just
writing the same old ****ty insults every time?

Why don't you try making a statement that isn't a childish expression of
pique?

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Stupid Phucker. MacOS is UNIX.

What part of "I don't care what's underneath, the top end is Mac OS" you
dumbass pig?

What part of MacOS is UNIX do you not understand you cretin?

Here's a clue, the interface is not an OS, not in MacOS, not in Windows,
not in Linux. Please, continue to prove that you're dumber than a rock
and you know ****-all about computing.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:05:53 -0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:14:06 -0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
[snip]

One thing I don't understand is

... everything.

How childish of you yet again.

Everyone who doesn't agree with you is "childish" in your distorted
world PHucker,

Nope, just people like you who reply to my opinion with a silly remark instead of discussing the point.

no doubt it's a comment that you hear every day - Oh look
those quotes in your sig are childish,

They are amusing if you have a sense of humour.

Oh look your foot stamping about driving is childish,

I don't stamp my feet. I find the driving habits of others amusing, but they don't annoy me. The reverse is not true.

Oh look your attempts at photography are childish... so it goes.

Rubbish maybe, but I can't see how you can say they're childish.

why your

"you're", you're welcome.

**** off typo pedant.

That wasn't a "typo" it was a demonstration of your ignorance.

Unless you can find where I've done it repeatedly, it was quite obviously a mistake.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:05:53 -0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Stupid Phucker. MacOS is UNIX.

What part of "I don't care what's underneath, the top end is Mac OS" you
dumbass pig?

What part of MacOS is UNIX do you not understand you cretin?

Here's a clue, the interface is not an OS, not in MacOS, not in Windows,
not in Linux. Please, continue to prove that you're dumber than a rock
and you know ****-all about computing.

I don't care what's underneath, neither does anyone. What matters is the interface. And the Mac OS has a ****ing ****e one.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

In an attempt to attract a more modern, hipper, high tech type of customer, Campbell's Alphabet Soup now comes with spell check.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Here's a clue, the interface is not an OS, not in MacOS, not in Windows,
not in Linux. Please, continue to prove that you're dumber than a rock
and you know ****-all about computing.

I don't care what's underneath,

You don't know what the OS is, that has been clear from your idiotic
witterings here.

neither does anyone.

I'm sure you can post a reference to the study that supports that claim.
Actually I'm sure you can't. People do care what the OS beneath the
interface is, because people discuss that OS and interact with that OS
outside of the GUI. So, once more, you are wrong. Hardly surprising
because your comment here, as with much of your other comment is founded
on ignorance.

What matters is the interface.

The interface is not the OS, it is the glitzy layer than isolates the
user from the details of the OS. Many thanks for once again proving that
you don't know what you are talking about. As usual with you, you slip
and slime and weasel your way from post to post trying to change the
subject. *You* started wibbling about MacOS. Now you are proving that
you hadn't got a clue what you were talking about.

And the Mac OS has a ****ing ****e one.

Wrong even at that level, as the large number of users ditching the bag
of nails that is Windows to take up use of Apple devices and computers
shows. Perhaps you can point to the Windows GUI features that rival the
Automator or Applescript? Since your setting out a position as an expert
in both GUIs I look forward to your detailed and insightful comment.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:30:41 -0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Here's a clue, the interface is not an OS, not in MacOS, not in Windows,
not in Linux. Please, continue to prove that you're dumber than a rock
and you know ****-all about computing.

I don't care what's underneath,

You don't know what the OS is, that has been clear from your idiotic
witterings here.

I know perfectly well what it is, having worked with the pile of ****e for 11 years.

But most users of Macs are more interested in what they actually see, not the wonders of the underneath.

neither does anyone.

I'm sure you can post a reference to the study that supports that claim.

I don't need a ****ing study, observing real life does me just fine. You're one of those morons that creates jobs for paperpushing ****wits to phone people up when they're trying to eat their dinner to ask them stupid ****ing questions they don't want asked aren't you?

Actually I'm sure you can't. People do care what the OS beneath the
interface is, because people discuss that OS and interact with that OS
outside of the GUI. So, once more, you are wrong. Hardly surprising
because your comment here, as with much of your other comment is founded
on ignorance.

You're talking about a small minority of technically minded geeks. If you were a proper geek you'd use proper Unix not the ****e that Apple shoved on top of it.

What matters is the interface.

The interface is not the OS, it is the glitzy layer than isolates the
user from the details of the OS. Many thanks for once again proving that
you don't know what you are talking about. As usual with you, you slip
and slime and weasel your way from post to post trying to change the
subject. *You* started wibbling about MacOS. Now you are proving that
you hadn't got a clue what you were talking about.

See one of my replies above as you've stated exactly the same tripe again and I can't be bothered rewording my reply.

And the Mac OS has a ****ing ****e one.

Wrong even at that level, as the large number of users ditching the bag
of nails that is Windows to take up use of Apple devices and computers
shows. Perhaps you can point to the Windows GUI features that rival the
Automator or Applescript?

Like most people use that.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

40,000 Americans are injured by toilets each year.

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:30:41 -0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Here's a clue, the interface is not an OS, not in MacOS, not in Windows,
not in Linux. Please, continue to prove that you're dumber than a rock
and you know ****-all about computing.

I don't care what's underneath,

You don't know what the OS is, that has been clear from your idiotic
witterings here.

I know perfectly well what it is, having worked with the pile of ****e for 11 years.

Untrue, you can't tell the difference between OS and interface.

But most users of Macs are more interested in what they actually see, not
the wonders of the underneath.

Oh look, whenever you are cornered you try diversion by making yet another
unsupported statement. How did you find out what "most users" are
interested in? Telepathy?

neither does anyone.

I'm sure you can post a reference to the study that supports that claim.

I don't need a ****ing study,

So the honest answer would be that you had no evidence and pulled some
tripe out of your arse to bolster your weak argument with a veneer of (non
existent) evidence.

observing real life does me just fine.

You're going to have to get a life first.

You're one of those morons that creates jobs for paperpushing ****wits to
phone people up when they're trying to eat their dinner to ask them
stupid ****ing questions they don't want asked aren't you?

No.

Actually I'm sure you can't. People do care what the OS beneath the
interface is, because people discuss that OS and interact with that OS
outside of the GUI. So, once more, you are wrong. Hardly surprising
because your comment here, as with much of your other comment is founded
on ignorance.

You're talking about a small minority of technically minded geeks. If
you were a proper geek you'd use proper Unix not the ****e that Apple shoved on top of it.

I work in environments that are staffed with the geekiest of geeks. Do you
want to guess what's the most popular brand of computer? I bet you don't.

What matters is the interface.

The interface is not the OS, it is the glitzy layer than isolates the
user from the details of the OS. Many thanks for once again proving that
you don't know what you are talking about. As usual with you, you slip
and slime and weasel your way from post to post trying to change the
subject. *You* started wibbling about MacOS. Now you are proving that
you hadn't got a clue what you were talking about.

See one of my replies above as you've stated exactly the same tripe again
and I can't be bothered rewording my reply.

Thank you for the admission that you're full of ****.

And the Mac OS has a ****ing ****e one.

Wrong even at that level, as the large number of users ditching the bag
of nails that is Windows to take up use of Apple devices and computers
shows. Perhaps you can point to the Windows GUI features that rival the
Automator or Applescript?

Like most people use that.

Oh look another attempt at diversion. So the answer that an honest person
(not you) would have given is "no, there's nothing to compare".

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:30:16 -0000, Steve Firth wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:30:41 -0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Here's a clue, the interface is not an OS, not in MacOS, not in Windows,
not in Linux. Please, continue to prove that you're dumber than a rock
and you know ****-all about computing.

I don't care what's underneath,

You don't know what the OS is, that has been clear from your idiotic
witterings here.

I know perfectly well what it is, having worked with the pile of ****e for 11 years.

Untrue, you can't tell the difference between OS and interface.

I know the difference, but I made the mistake of assuming you would realise which was the important one we were discussing. I forgot how dim you were. I guess that's why you work for law enforcement.

But most users of Macs are more interested in what they actually see, not
the wonders of the underneath.

Oh look, whenever you are cornered you try diversion by making yet another
unsupported statement. How did you find out what "most users" are
interested in? Telepathy?

By talking to them.

neither does anyone.

I'm sure you can post a reference to the study that supports that claim.

I don't need a ****ing study,

So the honest answer would be that you had no evidence and pulled some
tripe out of your arse to bolster your weak argument with a veneer of (non
existent) evidence.

Nope, I have spoken to hundreds of Mac users.

observing real life does me just fine.

You're going to have to get a life first.

Oh do grow up.

You're one of those morons that creates jobs for paperpushing ****wits to
phone people up when they're trying to eat their dinner to ask them
stupid ****ing questions they don't want asked aren't you?

No.

You should be, you'd fit in well.

Actually I'm sure you can't. People do care what the OS beneath the
interface is, because people discuss that OS and interact with that OS
outside of the GUI. So, once more, you are wrong. Hardly surprising
because your comment here, as with much of your other comment is founded
on ignorance.

You're talking about a small minority of technically minded geeks. If
you were a proper geek you'd use proper Unix not the ****e that Apple shoved on top of it.

I work in environments that are staffed with the geekiest of geeks. Do you
want to guess what's the most popular brand of computer? I bet you don't.

They probably weren't allowed to choose Unix.

What matters is the interface.

The interface is not the OS, it is the glitzy layer than isolates the
user from the details of the OS. Many thanks for once again proving that
you don't know what you are talking about. As usual with you, you slip
and slime and weasel your way from post to post trying to change the
subject. *You* started wibbling about MacOS. Now you are proving that
you hadn't got a clue what you were talking about.

See one of my replies above as you've stated exactly the same tripe again
and I can't be bothered rewording my reply.

Thank you for the admission that you're full of ****.

How can you possibly read "you've stated exactly the same tripe again" as me being full of ****?

And the Mac OS has a ****ing ****e one.

Wrong even at that level, as the large number of users ditching the bag
of nails that is Windows to take up use of Apple devices and computers
shows. Perhaps you can point to the Windows GUI features that rival the
Automator or Applescript?

Like most people use that.

Oh look another attempt at diversion. So the answer that an honest person
(not you) would have given is "no, there's nothing to compare".

I was pointing out that you were quoting something of little importance.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

How much deeper would the ocean be if sponges didn't grow in it?

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

I know the difference, but I made the mistake of assuming you would
realise which was the important one we were discussing. I forgot how dim
you were.

I see, it's another of your "yes I was talking about X, and talking
******** but anyone should have realised I meant Y" posts.

I guess that's why you work for law enforcement.

Do I? That's news to me.

Nope, I have spoken to hundreds of Mac users

Ranting at people in the street when you are ****ed out of your head
does not count as "speaking". HTH.

I work in environments that are staffed with the geekiest of geeks. Do you
want to guess what's the most popular brand of computer? I bet you don't.

They probably weren't allowed to choose Unix.

a) They did choose UNIX, they chose MacOS.
b) They buy their own computers and have free choice of what they buy.

Thank you being an ignorant tosspot, do enjoy what little is left of
your life.