PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
gaby de wilde wrote:

It was among the fastest, most efficient
production cars ever built.

What a load of nonsense.

LIES like that just make you look stupid.

---
Lies?

You can start here ....

" The car's top speed was electronically limited to 80 mph "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

Furthermore, as a 2 seater model only it was never a practical car for
most people.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Bloody stupid if you ask me.

Yes, you are. Thank you for finally admitting it.

TWIT

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Not UK fl oz of course.

I did just check my own bottle of L&P and to my surprise it's labelled "
150ml (5.3 fl oz) " but those are UK fl oz. There is no actual prohibition of
dual marking but almost no-one does it and it wouldn't be US fl oz since they
aren't legal here. Your bottle would be 15.6 fl oz here. Proof it any were
needed that what you have there is an example of export labelling for the US
market. It bears no resemblance in any other way either to the UK bottle
which is distinguishable by its orange label e.g.
http://www.leaperrins.ca/homeEN.asp

I also checked a few other items and no others had fl oz on them. They're all
in ml.

They don't want to confuse small minds like yours, that can't do more
then the simplest math.

Fluid ounces serve no practical purpose.

FYI when I started studing physics we briefly used the Imperial system and it made
no sense at all what with crazy measures like foot-poundals et al. Luckily we
rapidly changed to cgs and then MKS (the precursor of SI) and all of a sudden all
was clear.

I went on to get top grades in my Physics 'O' level (age 16) and 'A' level (age 18)
exams and furthermore got a pass (a second only sadly - the electronic content that
year was low) in the Physics 'S level' (special paper) normally only typically
taken by Oxford and Cambridge entrants (our 'Ivy Leauge' if you like). The school
wanted me to apply to Cambridge actually but they didn't offer any specialist
electronic courses, they were still stuck with 'natural sciences', so I went to the
University of London (UCL).

Doing Physics in Imperial measures is NUTS. Never mind that American measures use
the same names but are different ! What a bloody mess !

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 24 May 2008 08:43:03 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

So why do you get your knickers in a bunch if our bottles have the
quantity of their contents stated in fluid ounces?

I didn't.

---
Sure you did.

You stated, in your always America-bashing way, that there was no way
to standardize the measure,

I said there are 3 standards.


when what appears on our bottles is
standard US fluid ounces and standard everywhere milliliters. (Which,
BTW, yields a handy conversion, if it's necessary) That works for us,
which really rankles you since you want to think that we're all
slack-jawed knuckle-draggers and the UK is the elite be-all and
end-all of everything, even though your Lea and Perrins bottle sports
both fluid ounces and milliliters, just like ours,

No, it's marked in ml and BRITISH fl oz over here. Yours is marked in US fl oz
and ml.

---
Surely, you must be joking!

I can't imagine why our bottles would be marked as containing US fluid
ounces.

How clever of the bottlers!
---

Disagreeing with you is hardly getting my knickers in a twist, and if
it's a sea of our own, as you imply, why should that concern you?

I'm not interested in playing your silly game any more.

---
Then get off the playground and shut the fuck up.

JF

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

So why do you get your knickers in a bunch if our bottles have the
quantity of their contents stated in fluid ounces?

I didn't.

---
Sure you did.

You stated, in your always America-bashing way, that there was no way
to standardize the measure,

I said there are 3 standards.


when what appears on our bottles is
standard US fluid ounces and standard everywhere milliliters. (Which,
BTW, yields a handy conversion, if it's necessary) That works for us,
which really rankles you since you want to think that we're all
slack-jawed knuckle-draggers and the UK is the elite be-all and
end-all of everything, even though your Lea and Perrins bottle sports
both fluid ounces and milliliters, just like ours,

No, it's marked in ml and BRITISH fl oz over here. Yours is marked in US fl oz
and ml.

---
Surely, you must be joking!

No.

Those are facts. Are you seriously not capable of seeing / understanding that for
yourself ?

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 24 May 2008 09:57:19 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Not UK fl oz of course.

I did just check my own bottle of L&P and to my surprise it's labelled "
150ml (5.3 fl oz) " but those are UK fl oz. There is no actual prohibition of
dual marking but almost no-one does it and it wouldn't be US fl oz since they
aren't legal here. Your bottle would be 15.6 fl oz here. Proof it any were
needed that what you have there is an example of export labelling for the US
market. It bears no resemblance in any other way either to the UK bottle
which is distinguishable by its orange label e.g.
http://www.leaperrins.ca/homeEN.asp

I also checked a few other items and no others had fl oz on them. They're all
in ml.

They don't want to confuse small minds like yours, that can't do more
then the simplest math.

Fluid ounces serve no practical purpose.

FYI when I started studing physics we briefly used the Imperial system and it made
no sense at all what with crazy measures like foot-poundals et al. Luckily we
rapidly changed to cgs and then MKS (the precursor of SI) and all of a sudden all
was clear.

I went on to get top grades in my Physics 'O' level (age 16) and 'A' level (age 18)
exams and furthermore got a pass (a second only sadly - the electronic content that
year was low) in the Physics 'S level' (special paper) normally only typically
taken by Oxford and Cambridge entrants (our 'Ivy Leauge' if you like). The school
wanted me to apply to Cambridge actually but they didn't offer any specialist
electronic courses, they were still stuck with 'natural sciences', so I went to the
University of London (UCL).

Doing Physics in Imperial measures is NUTS. Never mind that American measures use
the same names but are different ! What a bloody mess !

---
And yet...

Take a look at this:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/nobel/

Perhaps the difficulty in dealing with non-Metric units has resulted
in what appears to be our overwhelming scientific superiority.

JF

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Perhaps the difficulty in dealing with non-Metric units has resulted
in what appears to be our overwhelming scientific superiority.

Don't give a shit.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Eeyore wrote:

Doing Physics in Imperial measures is NUTS. Never mind that American measures use
the same names but are different ! What a bloody mess !

Graham

I dunno--I usually use Gaussian units, because of all those silly
epsilon-noughts and mu-noughts you have to worry about in the SI system.
God clearly meant us to use Gaussian units, because to engineering
accuracy 1 cm = 1 pF. (*) Anyway, you only need the units once the
physics is done and you're descending to mere engineering.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

(*) God also wants us to use English units, as you can tell from the
cosmically revealed fact that 1 attoparsec equals almost exactly 1 decifoot.

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 24 May 2008 13:55:39 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

So why do you get your knickers in a bunch if our bottles have the
quantity of their contents stated in fluid ounces?

I didn't.

---
Sure you did.

You stated, in your always America-bashing way, that there was no way
to standardize the measure,

I said there are 3 standards.


when what appears on our bottles is
standard US fluid ounces and standard everywhere milliliters. (Which,
BTW, yields a handy conversion, if it's necessary) That works for us,
which really rankles you since you want to think that we're all
slack-jawed knuckle-draggers and the UK is the elite be-all and
end-all of everything, even though your Lea and Perrins bottle sports
both fluid ounces and milliliters, just like ours,

No, it's marked in ml and BRITISH fl oz over here. Yours is marked in US fl oz
and ml.

---
Surely, you must be joking!

No.

Those are facts. Are you seriously not capable of seeing / understanding that for
yourself ?

---
I see you snipped the sarcasm...

What's the matter, donkey-boy, didn't you get it?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 24 May 2008 15:36:12 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Perhaps the difficulty in dealing with non-Metric units has resulted
in what appears to be our overwhelming scientific superiority.

Don't give a shit.

---
Then what's the snippety-snip for and what's all your braying about?

JF

 

[David Z]

"Anika Julie Hayton" <anika@lios.apana.org.au> wrote in message
news:g1b6ep$ccj$3@yoda.apana.org.au...

the_dawggie <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> writes:

On May 25, 4:51 pm, Doug Jewell <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:
Just JT wrote:
"David Z" <d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Are we ever likely to see 0% APR here, like they've got in the US? I
can
actually see the logic in financing a new car with 0% APR, as opposed
to
buying outright. But with the ridiculous rates they charge at the
moment,
it makes no sense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep 0% APR **UP TO** a certain grace period after which you are hit by
exorbitant rates. No different from "interest-free" loans for
appliances.

Bottomline: if you don't have the cash to buy the car, you can't
afford the
car!!!

--
Borrowing.to.buy.depreciating.asset.is.STOOPID.

More proof you live in an over-simplified fairyland.
There is nothing at all wrong with borrowing money to
purchase something that will decline in value. The cost of
borrowing money should be weighed against the utility
received from the asset, not just the change in value of the
asset.

Agreed.

No one is going to turn their shite back into what once
been a nice restraunt meal.

For example if my car totally shat itself and I had to
purchase another vehicle, I would go out and borrow money to
buy another one, rather than waiting until I saved up the
few thousand to buy another. Simple reason is that for me to
be without a car would cost me more than the interest on a
car loan. If I didn't have a car I would have to get a taxi
any time I needed to travel. Work alone would set me back
about $200/week in taxi fares. Compare that to the interest
on a car loan and it makes far more sense to borrow money.
The same applies to borrowing money for things like computers.

If it is something you need, and it _MAKES_ you money,
through business reasons or otherwise then fine. Cars and
especially 'puters (and I've seen mainframe ones sold
in the millions, sold 3 years later for $45K, other ones even
more millions sold to a scrap metal yard). Comsumer items,
if they pay for themselves then yeah you might need to borrow
money. The USA in real estate has not done well in investment
recently.

Property is a good investment, only in the right places.

Where you are partially right, is that borrowing money to
purchase something that drops in value, that also provides
no additional value is stupid. For example I would consider
it stupid to borrow $50,000 for a new car when $15,000 will
get you one with a few years on it that will do exactly the

Exactly

same job. I would consider it stupid to borrow $5,000 to buy
a big plasma TV when $200 will buy you a decent sized
conventional screen TV.

I would never buy a plasma TV - I worked on the technology
in the 1980s. It's wrong - LCD projector, or an LCD screen is
the way to go.

Plasma displays use MORE power than a CRT display, so they're far more of
a

Roughly the same power, not more.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Anika Julie Hayton wrote:

Plasma displays use MORE power than a CRT display, so they're far more of a
fire hazard! Insurance companies that give away plasma TV's are knowingly
allowing people to increase the risk of fire damage to their home and
ignoring that when offering home insurance policies.

The fire risk represented by an appliance has little to do with its
power consumption and much to do with how it uses the power.

Have you any evidence that the fire risk reprented by plasma TVs is
actually higher than that represented by CRT TVs?

Sylvia.

 

[Anika Julie Hayton]

the_dawggie <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> writes:

On May 25, 4:51 pm, Doug Jewell <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:
Just JT wrote:
"David Z" <d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Are we ever likely to see 0% APR here, like they've got in the US? I can
actually see the logic in financing a new car with 0% APR, as opposed to
buying outright. But with the ridiculous rates they charge at the moment,
it makes no sense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep 0% APR **UP TO** a certain grace period after which you are hit by
exorbitant rates. No different from "interest-free" loans for appliances.

Bottomline: if you don't have the cash to buy the car, you can't afford the
car!!!

--
Borrowing.to.buy.depreciating.asset.is.STOOPID.

More proof you live in an over-simplified fairyland.
There is nothing at all wrong with borrowing money to
purchase something that will decline in value. The cost of
borrowing money should be weighed against the utility
received from the asset, not just the change in value of the
asset.

Agreed.

No one is going to turn their shite back into what once
been a nice restraunt meal.

For example if my car totally shat itself and I had to
purchase another vehicle, I would go out and borrow money to
buy another one, rather than waiting until I saved up the
few thousand to buy another. Simple reason is that for me to
be without a car would cost me more than the interest on a
car loan. If I didn't have a car I would have to get a taxi
any time I needed to travel. Work alone would set me back
about $200/week in taxi fares. Compare that to the interest
on a car loan and it makes far more sense to borrow money.
The same applies to borrowing money for things like computers.

If it is something you need, and it _MAKES_ you money,
through business reasons or otherwise then fine. Cars and
especially 'puters (and I've seen mainframe ones sold
in the millions, sold 3 years later for $45K, other ones even
more millions sold to a scrap metal yard). Comsumer items,
if they pay for themselves then yeah you might need to borrow
money. The USA in real estate has not done well in investment
recently.

Property is a good investment, only in the right places.

Where you are partially right, is that borrowing money to
purchase something that drops in value, that also provides
no additional value is stupid. For example I would consider
it stupid to borrow $50,000 for a new car when $15,000 will
get you one with a few years on it that will do exactly the

Exactly

same job. I would consider it stupid to borrow $5,000 to buy
a big plasma TV when $200 will buy you a decent sized
conventional screen TV.

I would never buy a plasma TV - I worked on the technology
in the 1980s. It's wrong - LCD projector, or an LCD screen is
the way to go.

Plasma displays use MORE power than a CRT display, so they're far more of a
fire hazard! Insurance companies that give away plasma TV's are knowingly
allowing people to increase the risk of fire damage to their home and
ignoring that when offering home insurance policies.

--
Anika Julie Hayton - anika@lios.apana.org.au http://lios.apana.org.au/~anika.
http://www.southwestslutbags.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=258 Fuck the Jews!
http://www.technotranceravesex.net/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=125 Septic cunts
I'm into girls only, so bad luck guys. Wangle your Woo at someone else...

 

[son of a bitch]

Sylvia Else wrote:

Anika Julie Hayton wrote:

Plasma displays use MORE power than a CRT display, so they're far more
of a
fire hazard! Insurance companies that give away plasma TV's are knowingly
allowing people to increase the risk of fire damage to their home and
ignoring that when offering home insurance policies.


The fire risk represented by an appliance has little to do with its
power consumption and much to do with how it uses the power.

Have you any evidence that the fire risk reprented by plasma TVs is
actually higher than that represented by CRT TVs?

Sylvia.

I can't see why it's more a fire risk.

And from the Science Department:
The temperature of gas inside the itsy bitsy tubes is
4 times hotter than sun for a micro-second.

 

[Rod Speed]

Anika Julie Hayton <anika@lios.apana.org.au> wrote

the_dawggie <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> writes
Doug Jewell <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote
Just JT wrote
David Z <d...@hotmail.com> wrote

Are we ever likely to see 0% APR here, like they've got in the US?

Nope, because our interest rates never got anything like as low as theirs did.

I can actually see the logic in financing a new car
with 0% APR, as opposed to buying outright.

Yep, but thats with our 8%+ rates that are readily available with complete safety.

They didnt get anything like that either.

But with the ridiculous rates they charge at the moment, it makes no sense.

True. You can get 0% balance transfer on credit cards tho.

Yep 0% APR **UP TO** a certain grace period after which you are hit
by exorbitant rates. No different from "interest-free" loans for appliances.

Nothing to stop you paying it off while its still 0%

Bottomline: if you don't have the cash to buy the car, you can't afford the car!!!

Borrowing.to.buy.depreciating.asset.is.STOOPID.

Wrong, most obviously when that depreciating asset earns you decent
money and the tax system allows you do deduct that interest charge.

More proof you live in an over-simplified fairyland.
There is nothing at all wrong with borrowing money to
purchase something that will decline in value. The cost of
borrowing money should be weighed against the utility received
from the asset, not just the change in value of the asset.

Agreed.

No one is going to turn their shite back into what once been a nice restraunt meal.

For example if my car totally shat itself and I had to
purchase another vehicle, I would go out and borrow money to
buy another one, rather than waiting until I saved up the
few thousand to buy another. Simple reason is that for me to
be without a car would cost me more than the interest on a
car loan. If I didn't have a car I would have to get a taxi
any time I needed to travel. Work alone would set me back
about $200/week in taxi fares. Compare that to the interest
on a car loan and it makes far more sense to borrow money.
The same applies to borrowing money for things like computers.

If it is something you need, and it _MAKES_ you money,
through business reasons or otherwise then fine. Cars and
especially 'puters (and I've seen mainframe ones sold in the
millions, sold 3 years later for $45K, other ones even more
millions sold to a scrap metal yard). Comsumer items, if they
pay for themselves then yeah you might need to borrow money.
The USA in real estate has not done well in investment recently.

Property is a good investment, only in the right places.

Where you are partially right, is that borrowing money to
purchase something that drops in value, that also provides
no additional value is stupid. For example I would consider
it stupid to borrow $50,000 for a new car when $15,000 will
get you one with a few years on it that will do exactly the

Exactly

same job. I would consider it stupid to borrow $5,000 to buy
a big plasma TV when $200 will buy you a decent sized
conventional screen TV.

I would never buy a plasma TV - I worked on the technology in the
1980s. It's wrong - LCD projector, or an LCD screen is the way to go.

Plasma displays use MORE power than a CRT display, so they're far
more of a fire hazard! Insurance companies that give away plasma TV's
are knowingly allowing people to increase the risk of fire damage to
their home and ignoring that when offering home insurance policies.

 

[Just JT]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Borrowing.to.buy.depreciating.asset.is.STOOPID.

Wrong, most obviously when that depreciating asset earns you decent
money and the tax system allows you do deduct that interest charge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bottomline: if the interest charge is **A TAX BREAK** then go for it.

--
If.not.then.it's.DUMB.and.FOOLISH.

 

[Rod Speed]

Just JT <JohnnyThor@Hotmale.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Just JT <JohnnyThor@Hotmale.com> wrote

Borrowing.to.buy.depreciating.asset.is.STOOPID.

Wrong, most obviously when that depreciating asset earns you decent
money and the tax system allows you do deduct that interest charge.

Bottomline: if the interest charge is **A TAX BREAK** then go for it.

That aint the only time its worth paying interest on a car purchase.

The other obvious situation is where its essential to have a reliable
car to get a well paying job, even if the interest isnt a tax deduction
because personal expenses arent a tax deduction and going to and
from work doesnt qualify as a tax deduction.

It can make sense to pay interest on a car loan to get the job earlier
than you would be able to by saving up for the car purchase instead,
when there is no viable public transport available. The interest cost
can be substantially less than using taxis etc.

 

[Just JT]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Borrowing.to.buy.depreciating.asset.is.STOOPID.

Wrong, most obviously when that depreciating asset earns you decent
money and the tax system allows you do deduct that interest charge.

Bottomline: if the interest charge is **A TAX BREAK** then go for it.

That aint the only time its worth paying interest on a car purchase.

The other obvious situation is where its essential to have a reliable
car to get a well paying job, even if the interest isnt a tax deduction
because personal expenses arent a tax deduction and going to and
from work doesnt qualify as a tax deduction.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You can get a ten-year-old reliable car for $1,000 or less IF YOU LOOK HARD
ENOUGH. If you can't afford $1,000 for a car, you can't afford the car.

It can make sense to pay interest on a car loan to get the job earlier
than you would be able to by saving up for the car purchase instead,
when there is no viable public transport available. The interest cost
can be substantially less than using taxis etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With a car loan, you hope you don't get laid off or sacked and then lose the
ability to service the loan. The problem with a car loan is in time, the
balance on the car loan is higher than the resale value of the car. Then
you're screwed.

--
Cash.is.king.

 

[Rod Speed]

Just JT <Johnnythor@Hotmale.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Borrowing.to.buy.depreciating.asset.is.STOOPID.

Wrong, most obviously when that depreciating asset earns you decent
money and the tax system allows you do deduct that interest charge.

Bottomline: if the interest charge is **A TAX BREAK** then go for it.

That aint the only time its worth paying interest on a car purchase.

The other obvious situation is where its essential to have a reliable car to get a well paying job, even if the
interest isnt a tax deduction because personal expenses arent a tax deduction and going to and from work doesnt
qualify as a tax deduction.

You can get a ten-year-old reliable car for $1,000 or less IF YOU LOOK HARD ENOUGH.

Plenty arent capable of doing that, and plenty of those
$1K cars arent suitable for carting clients around in anyway.

If you can't afford $1,000 for a car, you can't afford the car.

Its MUCH more complicated than that in practice.

It can make sense to pay interest on a car loan to get the job
earlier than you would be able to by saving up for the car purchase
instead, when there is no viable public transport available. The
interest cost can be substantially less than using taxis etc.

With a car loan, you hope you don't get laid off or sacked and then lose the ability to service the loan.

With an unemployment rate of 3.x%, anyone who gets laid off or sacked can
soon get another job if they have a reliable car they can use to get to work in.

The problem with a car loan is in time, the balance on the car loan is higher than the resale value of the car. Then
you're screwed.

Nope, you just get another job and keep paying off the loan.

 

[Noddy]

"Just JT" <Johnnythor@Hotmale.com> wrote in message
news:4839edb8$0$22337$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...

You can get a ten-year-old reliable car for $1,000 or less IF YOU LOOK
HARD ENOUGH. If you can't afford $1,000 for a car, you can't afford the
car.

What kind of car exactly?

--
Regards,
Noddy.