"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 26/09/2016 13:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:55:20 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 10:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:02:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
m,
dennis@home wrote:
Shell scrapped their pay at the pump as they make more
money selling Costas at £3 a cup, Volvic at £1.50 a litre
and a sandwich at £3 than selling fuel.


You can buy fuel in Shell garages using your phone instead of
pay at pump.

Whatever happened to the 'do not use your mobile phone in a
filling station', then? Do you drive off and pay later? ;-)

I know Mythbusters busted it a while back ... total bollox
nowadays (may have been true in the past).


Mythbusters didn't test for the real reason mobiles are banned.

I suspect the biggest danger if from dropping your phone and the
battery subsequently blowing up and taking the fuel with it. Some
phones don't even need dropping!

I heard the real reason was because of the way the pumps calculated
how much petrol was pumped in that case the amount owing could be
altered by the older type mobile phones that had a higher signal
output rather than explosions. They have/had simialar concerns wuth
aircraft although that was apparently more to do with the wiring
picking up extransious mobile signals which agian just wouldn;t
happen with phones from this milenium.

Mobiles aren't banned by the companies. They are banned under law and it
has nothing to do with affecting the pumps.

Mobiles were banned by the airlines

Nope, by the regulatory authoritys.

and they are now letting people use them to access on-board services
because they get revenue from it.

Nope, its the regulatory authorities that have decided
that there is no reason to continue the ban and the airlines
mostly dont get any revenue from the use of phones anyway.

They don't affect aircraft systems as the systems are designed to high
standards like those set by the EU.

Simon Mason wrote
whisky-dave wrote

Nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.
Transmitters for passengers was banned
long before the EU existed in america.

Wrong.

The ban existed BEFORE mobile phones

Nope.

and because they couldn't predict any future problems
with mulitiple manufacuers they banned them all.

Wrong.

Ask a few pilots.

The only time I've been on a plane was in 1986 and
they banned me from using a short wave radio.

Only because the cabin crew were too ignorant to be
able to work out what was safe and what wasnt.

charles wrote:

I saw my first one in 1983 - the batterybox was the size of a house brick!


Car phones were around in the mid 1970s. I turned one down as
it meant I could be contacted when traveling!

wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 13:14:47 UTC+1, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
I'll stand up and say I have more than the average number of legs.

Having more than the average number of legs certainly helps with
standing up.

Most people in this group have more than the average number of legs, and
this isn't jest, it's fact.
:-p

On Monday, 26 September 2016 17:04:12 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 15:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 15:13:07 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 13:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:55:20 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 10:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:02:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Shell scrapped their pay at the pump as they make more money
selling Costas at £3 a cup, Volvic at £1.50 a litre and a
sandwich at £3 than selling fuel.


You can buy fuel in Shell garages using your phone instead of pay
at pump.

Whatever happened to the 'do not use your mobile phone in a
filling station', then? Do you drive off and pay later? ;-)

I know Mythbusters busted it a while back ... total bollox nowadays
(may have been true in the past).


Mythbusters didn't test for the real reason mobiles are banned.

I suspect the biggest danger if from dropping your phone and the
battery subsequently blowing up and taking the fuel with it. Some
phones don't even need dropping!

I heard the real reason was because of the way the pumps calculated
how much petrol was pumped in that case the amount owing could be
altered by the older type mobile phones that had a higher signal
output rather than explosions. They have/had simialar concerns wuth
aircraft although that was apparently more to do with the wiring
picking up extransious mobile signals which agian just wouldn;t
happen with phones from this milenium.


Mobiles aren't banned by the companies. They are banned under law and
it has nothing to do with affecting the pumps.

Mobiles were banned by the airlines and they are now letting people
use them to access on-board services because they get revenue from it.

On Monday, 26 September 2016 20:14:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:55:20 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 10:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:02:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Shell scrapped their pay at the pump as they make more money selling
Costas at £3 a cup, Volvic at £1.50 a litre and a sandwich at £3
than
selling fuel.


You can buy fuel in Shell garages using your phone instead of pay at
pump.

Whatever happened to the 'do not use your mobile phone in a filling
station', then? Do you drive off and pay later? ;-)

I know Mythbusters busted it a while back ... total bollox nowadays
(may
have been true in the past).


Mythbusters didn't test for the real reason mobiles are banned.

I suspect the biggest danger if from dropping your phone and the battery
subsequently blowing up and taking the fuel with it.
Some phones don't even need dropping!

I heard the real reason was because of the way the pumps calculated
how much petrol was pumped in that case the amount owing could
be altered by the older type mobile phones that had a higher signal
output rather than explosions.

Just goes to show how stupid it is to believe everything you hear.

The pumps of the era when mobile phones were originally banned
were mechanical, so that can't have been the reason for the ban.

They were not mechanical in the UK they mivh have been in your backward dustbowl.


They have/had simialar concerns wuth aircraft

Different equipment involved entirely.

Same problem electromagnetic interference.


although that was apparently more to do with
the wiring picking up extransious mobile signals

Wrong again.

right again.


which agian just wouldn;t happen with phones from this milenium.

Wrong, as always.

right again.

On Monday, 26 September 2016 20:26:20 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/09/16 13:14, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 26/09/16 13:01, wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:24:33 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
Isn't that rather like trying to sell a single sock?
Might be useful at the paralympics.

There are quite a lot of people who need one shoe, or a mismatched
size pair.


I'll stand up and say I have more than the average number of legs.

You cheated amd left out the centipedes

If he included all animals on the planet he'd have almost half the average number of legs (which is 3.96)

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 September 2016 17:04:12 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 15:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 15:13:07 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 13:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:55:20 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 10:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:02:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Shell scrapped their pay at the pump as they make more money
selling Costas at £3 a cup, Volvic at £1.50 a litre and a
sandwich at £3 than selling fuel.


You can buy fuel in Shell garages using your phone instead of
pay
at pump.

Whatever happened to the 'do not use your mobile phone in a
filling station', then? Do you drive off and pay later? ;-)

I know Mythbusters busted it a while back ... total bollox
nowadays
(may have been true in the past).


Mythbusters didn't test for the real reason mobiles are banned.

I suspect the biggest danger if from dropping your phone and the
battery subsequently blowing up and taking the fuel with it. Some
phones don't even need dropping!

I heard the real reason was because of the way the pumps calculated
how much petrol was pumped in that case the amount owing could be
altered by the older type mobile phones that had a higher signal
output rather than explosions. They have/had simialar concerns wuth
aircraft although that was apparently more to do with the wiring
picking up extransious mobile signals which agian just wouldn;t
happen with phones from this milenium.


Mobiles aren't banned by the companies. They are banned under law
and
it has nothing to do with affecting the pumps.

Mobiles were banned by the airlines and they are now letting people
use them to access on-board services because they get revenue from
it.
They don't affect aircraft systems as the systems are designed to
high
standards like those set by the EU.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Transmitters for passengers was
banned long before the EU existed in america. The ban existed BEFORE
mobile phones and because they couldn't predict any future problems
with mulitiple manufacuers they banned them all.

Ask a few pilots.




Who mentioned that it was the transmitters that were better? There have
been a number of improvements in EMC susceptibility along with some
rules to make it so.


That was one thing necessary to get the CE marking

wasn't the FCC a higher rating at the time,

Nope.

which was why the early Macs mac 128 and pluses and through
the quadra had such a large amount of foil inside the case.

Nothing to do with the FCC.

I really DO NOT believe it was the EEC/EC idea
to dan transmitting devices being used on plane.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 September 2016 20:14:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:55:20 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 10:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:02:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Shell scrapped their pay at the pump as they make more money
selling
Costas at £3 a cup, Volvic at £1.50 a litre and a sandwich at £3
than
selling fuel.


You can buy fuel in Shell garages using your phone instead of pay
at
pump.

Whatever happened to the 'do not use your mobile phone in a filling
station', then? Do you drive off and pay later? ;-)

I know Mythbusters busted it a while back ... total bollox nowadays
(may
have been true in the past).


Mythbusters didn't test for the real reason mobiles are banned.

I suspect the biggest danger if from dropping your phone and the
battery
subsequently blowing up and taking the fuel with it.
Some phones don't even need dropping!

I heard the real reason was because of the way the pumps calculated
how much petrol was pumped in that case the amount owing could
be altered by the older type mobile phones that had a higher signal
output rather than explosions.

Just goes to show how stupid it is to believe everything you hear.

The pumps of the era when mobile phones were originally banned
were mechanical, so that can't have been the reason for the ban.

They were not mechanical in the UK

Corse they were at that time.

They have/had simialar concerns wuth aircraft

Different equipment involved entirely.

Same problem electromagnetic interference.

But different equipment entirely. Radio receivers in fact.

although that was apparently more to do with
the wiring picking up extransious mobile signals

Wrong again.

which agian just wouldn;t happen with phones from this milenium.

Wrong, as always.

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 10:39:56 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 September 2016 17:04:12 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 15:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 15:13:07 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 13:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:55:20 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 10:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:02:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Shell scrapped their pay at the pump as they make more money
selling Costas at £3 a cup, Volvic at £1.50 a litre and a
sandwich at £3 than selling fuel.


You can buy fuel in Shell garages using your phone instead of
pay
at pump.

Whatever happened to the 'do not use your mobile phone in a
filling station', then? Do you drive off and pay later? ;-)

I know Mythbusters busted it a while back ... total bollox
nowadays
(may have been true in the past).


Mythbusters didn't test for the real reason mobiles are banned.

I suspect the biggest danger if from dropping your phone and the
battery subsequently blowing up and taking the fuel with it. Some
phones don't even need dropping!

I heard the real reason was because of the way the pumps calculated
how much petrol was pumped in that case the amount owing could be
altered by the older type mobile phones that had a higher signal
output rather than explosions. They have/had simialar concerns wuth
aircraft although that was apparently more to do with the wiring
picking up extransious mobile signals which agian just wouldn;t
happen with phones from this milenium.


Mobiles aren't banned by the companies. They are banned under law
and
it has nothing to do with affecting the pumps.

Mobiles were banned by the airlines and they are now letting people
use them to access on-board services because they get revenue from
it.
They don't affect aircraft systems as the systems are designed to
high
standards like those set by the EU.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Transmitters for passengers was
banned long before the EU existed in america. The ban existed BEFORE
mobile phones and because they couldn't predict any future problems
with mulitiple manufacuers they banned them all.

Ask a few pilots.




Who mentioned that it was the transmitters that were better? There have
been a number of improvements in EMC susceptibility along with some
rules to make it so.


That was one thing necessary to get the CE marking

wasn't the FCC a higher rating at the time,

Nope.

which was why the early Macs mac 128 and pluses and through
the quadra had such a large amount of foil inside the case.

Nothing to do with the FCC.

All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 10:39:56 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 September 2016 17:04:12 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 15:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 15:13:07 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 13:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:55:20 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 10:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:02:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
m,
dennis@home wrote:
Shell scrapped their pay at the pump as they make more
money
selling Costas at £3 a cup, Volvic at £1.50 a litre and a
sandwich at £3 than selling fuel.


You can buy fuel in Shell garages using your phone instead
of
pay
at pump.

Whatever happened to the 'do not use your mobile phone in a
filling station', then? Do you drive off and pay later? ;-)

I know Mythbusters busted it a while back ... total bollox
nowadays
(may have been true in the past).


Mythbusters didn't test for the real reason mobiles are banned.

I suspect the biggest danger if from dropping your phone and
the
battery subsequently blowing up and taking the fuel with it.
Some
phones don't even need dropping!

I heard the real reason was because of the way the pumps
calculated
how much petrol was pumped in that case the amount owing could
be
altered by the older type mobile phones that had a higher signal
output rather than explosions. They have/had simialar concerns
wuth
aircraft although that was apparently more to do with the wiring
picking up extransious mobile signals which agian just wouldn;t
happen with phones from this milenium.


Mobiles aren't banned by the companies. They are banned under law
and
it has nothing to do with affecting the pumps.

Mobiles were banned by the airlines and they are now letting
people
use them to access on-board services because they get revenue
from
it.
They don't affect aircraft systems as the systems are designed to
high
standards like those set by the EU.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Transmitters for passengers
was
banned long before the EU existed in america. The ban existed
BEFORE
mobile phones and because they couldn't predict any future
problems
with mulitiple manufacuers they banned them all.

Ask a few pilots.




Who mentioned that it was the transmitters that were better? There
have
been a number of improvements in EMC susceptibility along with some
rules to make it so.


That was one thing necessary to get the CE marking

wasn't the FCC a higher rating at the time,

Nope.

which was why the early Macs mac 128 and pluses and through
the quadra had such a large amount of foil inside the case.

Nothing to do with the FCC.

All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

That cant have been the reason for the large amounts of foil
inside the case of those early Macs, because hardly any other
computers had that, and they had to be passed by the FCC.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 10:39:56 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 September 2016 17:04:12 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 15:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 15:13:07 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 13:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 26 September 2016 12:55:20 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2016 10:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:02:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
m,
dennis@home wrote:
Shell scrapped their pay at the pump as they make more
money
selling Costas at £3 a cup, Volvic at £1.50 a litre and a
sandwich at £3 than selling fuel.


You can buy fuel in Shell garages using your phone instead
of
pay
at pump.

Whatever happened to the 'do not use your mobile phone in a
filling station', then? Do you drive off and pay later? ;-)

I know Mythbusters busted it a while back ... total bollox
nowadays
(may have been true in the past).


Mythbusters didn't test for the real reason mobiles are banned.

I suspect the biggest danger if from dropping your phone and
the
battery subsequently blowing up and taking the fuel with it.
Some
phones don't even need dropping!

I heard the real reason was because of the way the pumps
calculated
how much petrol was pumped in that case the amount owing could
be
altered by the older type mobile phones that had a higher signal
output rather than explosions. They have/had simialar concerns
wuth
aircraft although that was apparently more to do with the wiring
picking up extransious mobile signals which agian just wouldn;t
happen with phones from this milenium.


Mobiles aren't banned by the companies. They are banned under law
and
it has nothing to do with affecting the pumps.

Mobiles were banned by the airlines and they are now letting
people
use them to access on-board services because they get revenue
from
it.
They don't affect aircraft systems as the systems are designed to
high
standards like those set by the EU.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Transmitters for passengers
was
banned long before the EU existed in america. The ban existed
BEFORE
mobile phones and because they couldn't predict any future
problems
with mulitiple manufacuers they banned them all.

Ask a few pilots.




Who mentioned that it was the transmitters that were better? There
have
been a number of improvements in EMC susceptibility along with some
rules to make it so.


That was one thing necessary to get the CE marking

wasn't the FCC a higher rating at the time,

Nope.

which was why the early Macs mac 128 and pluses and through
the quadra had such a large amount of foil inside the case.

Nothing to do with the FCC.

All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

What the early Macs produced RF emissions wise had NOTHING to do with
SAFETY.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

How does that fit in with your ideal that any country can sell to any
other without restriction? Do you then think UK goods should get round
that ban?

But it is a prime example of such things. Any trade agreement between two
countries would likely result in a common standard for such things.
Exactly as in the EU.

--
*White with a hint of M42*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Another Dave
writes
On 24/09/16 17:00, David Lang wrote:
On the way home I did some shopping in Morrisons & used the self scan
checkouts.

Bag of loose mushrooms. placed on scale bit, touched fresh veg icon on
screen. Selected "L-M" icon which had a picture of a mushroom on it.
Screen opens, no mushrooms listed.
Spotted a search option, typed in MUS and before I can finish typing a
message appears "MUS doesn't match any items".

Attracted the attention of a Morrisons person, who did exactly what I
did - twice, with the same results.

He disappears & returns with a code number - the machine finally gives
in and admits that mushrooms actually exist.



Morrison's bread rolls filed only under Pick n Mix.

Another Dave
M&S French Apricot turnovers filed under Danish Pastries.
--
bert

In article , Jethro_uk
writes
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:55:22 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 26/09/2016 10:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:02:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Shell scrapped their pay at the pump as they make more money selling
Costas at £3 a cup, Volvic at £1.50 a litre and a sandwich at £3
than selling fuel.


You can buy fuel in Shell garages using your phone instead of pay at
pump.

Whatever happened to the 'do not use your mobile phone in a filling
station', then? Do you drive off and pay later? ;-)

I know Mythbusters busted it a while back ... total bollox nowadays
(may have been true in the past).


Mythbusters didn't test for the real reason mobiles are banned.

I suspect the biggest danger if from dropping your phone and the battery
subsequently blowing up and taking the fuel with it.
Some phones don't even need dropping!

Having seen (admittedly older) engines light up like Christmas trees from
leaky HT leads, I remain sceptical of a lot of "science" behind bans
generally.

Most of it is just for show.
No one has the balls to "unban" it when the technology changes.
--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , Another Dave
writes
On 24/09/16 17:00, David Lang wrote:
On the way home I did some shopping in Morrisons & used the self scan
checkouts.

Bag of loose mushrooms. placed on scale bit, touched fresh veg icon on
screen. Selected "L-M" icon which had a picture of a mushroom on it.
Screen opens, no mushrooms listed.
Spotted a search option, typed in MUS and before I can finish typing a
message appears "MUS doesn't match any items".

Attracted the attention of a Morrisons person, who did exactly what I
did - twice, with the same results.

He disappears & returns with a code number - the machine finally gives
in and admits that mushrooms actually exist.



Morrison's bread rolls filed only under Pick n Mix.

Another Dave
M&S French Apricot turnovers filed under Danish Pastries.

Newcastle Brown with a "Product of EU" under it on the shelf.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 27/09/2016 17:26, charles wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , Another Dave
writes
On 24/09/16 17:00, David Lang wrote:
On the way home I did some shopping in Morrisons & used the self scan
checkouts.

Bag of loose mushrooms. placed on scale bit, touched fresh veg icon on
screen. Selected "L-M" icon which had a picture of a mushroom on it.
Screen opens, no mushrooms listed.
Spotted a search option, typed in MUS and before I can finish typing a
message appears "MUS doesn't match any items".

Attracted the attention of a Morrisons person, who did exactly what I
did - twice, with the same results.

He disappears & returns with a code number - the machine finally gives
in and admits that mushrooms actually exist.



Morrison's bread rolls filed only under Pick n Mix.

Another Dave
M&S French Apricot turnovers filed under Danish Pastries.

Newcastle Brown with a "Product of EU" under it on the shelf.

Perfectly true statement - for now.

On 27/09/16 17:03, bert wrote:
I remain sceptical of a lot of "science" behind bans
generally.

Most of it is just for show.
No one has the balls to "unban" it when the technology changes.

Regulatory ratcheting.
New regulations are added, old ones seldom repealed


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 14:05:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

How does that fit in with your ideal that any country can sell to any
other without restriction?

Surely it's up to the buy to restrict NOT the seller.
That why we have customs who decide using the UK law on what's allowed and what isn't into the country.


Do you then think UK goods should get round
that ban?

Depending on the ban, bans can get circumvented.


But it is a prime example of such things. Any trade agreement between two
countries would likely result in a common standard for such things.
Exactly as in the EU.

You mean the common standard between the UK and the USA .

You mean the way we can't export to Brazil because it has to go through the EU.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 14:05:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

How does that fit in with your ideal that any country can sell to any
other without restriction?

Surely it's up to the buy to restrict NOT the seller. That why we have
customs who decide using the UK law on what's allowed and what isn't
into the country.


Do you then think UK goods should get round that ban?

Depending on the ban, bans can get circumvented.


But it is a prime example of such things. Any trade agreement between
two countries would likely result in a common standard for such
things. Exactly as in the EU.

You mean the common standard between the UK and the USA .

You mean the way we can't export to Brazil because it has to go through
the EU.
Nice to have it confirmed you either don't read or understand posts on
that matter.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 14:36:37 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 14:05:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

How does that fit in with your ideal that any country can sell to any
other without restriction?

Surely it's up to the buy to restrict NOT the seller. That why we have
customs who decide using the UK law on what's allowed and what isn't
into the country.


Do you then think UK goods should get round that ban?

Depending on the ban, bans can get circumvented.


But it is a prime example of such things. Any trade agreement between
two countries would likely result in a common standard for such
things. Exactly as in the EU.

You mean the common standard between the UK and the USA .

You mean the way we can't export to Brazil because it has to go through
the EU.
Nice to have it confirmed you either don't read or understand posts on
that matter.

So come on then if you're such a genius at this, explain it, but you haven't a clue have you.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

How does that fit in with your ideal that any country can sell to any
other without restriction? Do you then think UK goods should get round
that ban?

But it is a prime example of such things. Any trade agreement between two
countries would likely result in a common standard for such things.
Exactly as in the EU.



Common standards in the EU? In your dreams! Just look at plugs.

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 17:06:23 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

How does that fit in with your ideal that any country can sell to any
other without restriction? Do you then think UK goods should get round
that ban?

But it is a prime example of such things. Any trade agreement between two
countries would likely result in a common standard for such things.
Exactly as in the EU.

I have been to every country in Europe except Belarus and the UK is the only country that has non standard sockets.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 18:26:14 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:


I have been to every country in Europe except Belarus and the UK is the only
country that has non standard sockets.

Cock.

Even if he was just refering to the 13 amp square pin he would still
be wrong as it is used in the Republic of Ireland* and Malta.

You can't put an Italian three pin plug into anyone else's, or a Swiss
one come to that.

See he
http://www.worldstandards.eu/electricity/plugs-and-sockets/

Denmark has a plug that isn't used in many other places either, I
found that out when I had to put some catering equipment on a ferry
chartered from there to work out of a UK port.
The German Schuko type socket is fast becoming the most common as
plugs that fit them and the French type are almost standard on many
items but there a lots of national types still in use.

* Ironically the Republic of Ireland at one time had Schuko as the
prefered standard till they decided that although they may not always
get on with the UK it was easier to use the system of their closest
neighbour .
I wonder how many are still in use over there from that period.

G.Harman

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 14:05:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

How does that fit in with your ideal that any country can sell to any
other without restriction?

Surely it's up to the buy to restrict NOT the seller.
That why we have customs who decide using the UK law on what's allowed and
what isn't into the country.


Do you then think UK goods should get round
that ban?

Depending on the ban, bans can get circumvented.


But it is a prime example of such things. Any trade agreement between two
countries would likely result in a common standard for such things.
Exactly as in the EU.

You mean the common standard between the UK and the USA .

You mean the way we can't export to Brazil
because it has to go through the EU.

It never has with exports to Brazil.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 14:36:37 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 14:05:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

How does that fit in with your ideal that any country can sell to any
other without restriction?

Surely it's up to the buy to restrict NOT the seller. That why we have
customs who decide using the UK law on what's allowed and what isn't
into the country.


Do you then think UK goods should get round that ban?

Depending on the ban, bans can get circumvented.


But it is a prime example of such things. Any trade agreement between
two countries would likely result in a common standard for such
things. Exactly as in the EU.

You mean the common standard between the UK and the USA .

You mean the way we can't export to Brazil because it has to go
through
the EU.
Nice to have it confirmed you either don't read or understand posts on
that matter.

So come on then if you're such a genius at this, explain it,

Everyone who commented did. IT WAS BRAZIL THAT CHOSE
TO IMPOSE TARIFFS ON WHAT WAS IMPORTED INTO BRAZIL,
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE EU.

but you haven't a clue have you.

Its you that have never had a ****ing clue about why that
stuff wasnt exported to Brazil, even after almost everyone
who didnt just ignore your **** rubbed your nose in the basics.

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 17:06:23 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

How does that fit in with your ideal that any country can sell to any
other without restriction? Do you then think UK goods should get round
that ban?

But it is a prime example of such things. Any trade agreement between
two
countries would likely result in a common standard for such things.
Exactly as in the EU.

I have been to every country in Europe except Belarus and the UK is the
only country that has non standard sockets.

BULL****.

On 28/09/2016 13:52, whisky-dave wrote:


You mean the way we can't export to Brazil because it has to go through the EU.



Do you think repeating a lie makes it true?

On 28/09/2016 19:00, wrote:
Even if he was just refering to the 13 amp square pin he would still
be wrong as it is used in the Republic of Ireland* and Malta.

And Gibraltar, so I read.

--
Rod

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
You mean the way we can't export to Brazil because it has to go
through the EU.
Nice to have it confirmed you either don't read or understand posts on
that matter.

So come on then if you're such a genius at this, explain it, but you
haven't a clue have you.

You can find the explanation yourself earlier in this thread. But
experience shows you're not interested in knowing the answer.

--
*Always drink upstream from the herd *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Simon Mason wrote:
But it is a prime example of such things. Any trade agreement
between two countries would likely result in a common standard for
such things. Exactly as in the EU.

I have been to every country in Europe except Belarus and the UK is the
only country that has non standard sockets.

If you have visited every country in the EU you've certainly not examined
their sockets.

My guess is there was some thought to setting a standard, but it would
have had to have been like the wiring colours - no one country's standard
adopted. So put on hold.

--
*Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 22:47:22 UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
On 28/09/2016 19:00, wrote:
Even if he was just refering to the 13 amp square pin he would still
be wrong as it is used in the Republic of Ireland* and Malta.

And Gibraltar, so I read.

--
Rod

Which is not a country.

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 20:26:35 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:


I have been to every country in Europe except Belarus and the UK is the
only country that has non standard sockets.

BULL****.

I can prove that I have been to all of them if you wish.

Simon Mason wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Simon Mason wrote

I have been to every country in Europe except Belarus and
the UK is the only country that has non standard sockets.

BULL****.

I can prove that I have been to all of them if you wish.

All that would prove is that you didnt even
look at what plugs are used in most of them.

On Thursday, 29 September 2016 08:49:06 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Simon Mason wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Simon Mason wrote

I have been to every country in Europe except Belarus and
the UK is the only country that has non standard sockets.

BULL****.

I can prove that I have been to all of them if you wish.

All that would prove is that you didnt even
look at what plugs are used in most of them.

I didn't plug anything in in Vatican City - I'll give you that.

Simon Mason wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Simon Mason wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Simon Mason wrote

I have been to every country in Europe except Belarus and
the UK is the only country that has non standard sockets.

BULL****.

I can prove that I have been to all of them if you wish.

All that would prove is that you didnt even
look at what plugs are used in most of them.

I didn't plug anything in in Vatican City - I'll give you that.

You clearly didnt get out much in the other places either, just the tourist
traps.

On Thursday, 29 September 2016 11:33:25 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:


I didn't plug anything in in Vatican City - I'll give you that.

You clearly didnt get out much in the other places either, just the tourist
traps.

Tirana, Podgorica, Chisinau, Lviv, Sarajevo, Mostar, Bucharest, Sofia, San Marino, Vaduz, Belgrade, Skopje, etc are hardly tourist traps.

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 17:35:51 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 17:06:23 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

All equipment in the USA has to pass the FCC or it can't be sold.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tech.../faq/rf-safety

How does that fit in with your ideal that any country can sell to any
other without restriction? Do you then think UK goods should get round
that ban?

But it is a prime example of such things. Any trade agreement between two
countries would likely result in a common standard for such things.
Exactly as in the EU.

I have been to every country in Europe except Belarus and the UK is the only country that has non standard sockets.

They are standard for our plugs :-)

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 21:50:12 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/09/2016 13:52, whisky-dave wrote:


You mean the way we can't export to Brazil because it has to go through the EU.



Do you think repeating a lie makes it true?

Prove to me it's not true then.
A simple link will do.

Simon Mason wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I didn't plug anything in in Vatican City - I'll give you that.

You clearly didnt get out much in the
other places either, just the tourist traps.

Tirana, Podgorica, Chisinau, Lviv, Sarajevo, Mostar, Bucharest, Sofia,
San Marino, Vaduz, Belgrade, Skopje, etc are hardly tourist traps.

Where you ended up IN those clearly were if you never
even noticed the non standard power plugs they use.