The conversation on this page has been archived and is no longer active.

Actual cost of running a computer...

Message #1 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andy Hewitt

I've just completed two of my three tests on power consumption for my G5 system, and thought you lot might find it interesting.

My system tested comprises of:

G5 dual 1.8 with 4.5GB of RAM and two 320GB internal drives. Also has a Radeon 9800XT 256MB graphics card.
A Formac 17" TFT monitor running off the ADC port.
A HP 20" widescreen TFT running off the DVI port.
A twin drive 5.25" external FW800 drive enclosure with a 160GB and a 300GB drive in it.
A Buffalo 4 port and wireless router.
Canon IP4200 printer.
EyeTV Hybrid.
7 port USB hub.
HP Laserjet 5N.
Electricity charged at £0.0871 per KWh.

I have tried running the tests of 48 hours, rather than 24, as there is often a fair variation in how the equipment is used, so I tried to make sure that all of it was used pretty much the same over a couple of days.

In all tests the monitors are turned off overnight, and all of the USB items are powered on, as is the router. The exception being the printers which are only switched on when needed.

On day one I ran the Mac for 24 hours in a completely 'On' condition (except the monitors and peripherals. This resulted in a 48 hour cost of £1.18 (£214.76 per year).

The next two days I used sleep mode when I was not around, and shut down the G5 overnight. This cost £0.68 for 48 hours (£123.76 per year).

The final test was using just sleep mode rather than shutdown. This gave a cost of £0.77 for 48 hours (£140.14 per year).

As you can see, there is a very large saving just putting the Mac to sleep overnight - some £91, and shutting down saves another £17.

I'm sure I could actually get the final saving down to 50% saving if I really tried.

However, as somebody who is now a lone parent, I find this quite amazing as to how much you can actually save. Even using the difference between sleep and shutdown modes is enough to pay for the device I bought to measure all this.

I shall be doing other tests around the house now :-)

Message #2 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Paul Russell

Andy Hewitt wrote:

I've just completed two of my three tests on power consumption for my G5 system, and thought you lot might find it interesting.

My system tested comprises of:

G5 dual 1.8 with 4.5GB of RAM and two 320GB internal drives. Also has a Radeon 9800XT 256MB graphics card.
A Formac 17" TFT monitor running off the ADC port.
A HP 20" widescreen TFT running off the DVI port.
A twin drive 5.25" external FW800 drive enclosure with a 160GB and a 300GB drive in it.
A Buffalo 4 port and wireless router.
Canon IP4200 printer.
EyeTV Hybrid.
7 port USB hub.
HP Laserjet 5N.
Electricity charged at £0.0871 per KWh.

I have tried running the tests of 48 hours, rather than 24, as there is often a fair variation in how the equipment is used, so I tried to make sure that all of it was used pretty much the same over a couple of days.

In all tests the monitors are turned off overnight, and all of the USB items are powered on, as is the router. The exception being the printers which are only switched on when needed.

On day one I ran the Mac for 24 hours in a completely 'On' condition (except the monitors and peripherals. This resulted in a 48 hour cost of £1.18 (£214.76 per year).

The next two days I used sleep mode when I was not around, and shut down the G5 overnight. This cost £0.68 for 48 hours (£123.76 per year).

The final test was using just sleep mode rather than shutdown. This gave a cost of £0.77 for 48 hours (£140.14 per year).

As you can see, there is a very large saving just putting the Mac to sleep overnight - some £91, and shutting down saves another £17.

I'm sure I could actually get the final saving down to 50% saving if I really tried.

However, as somebody who is now a lone parent, I find this quite amazing as to how much you can actually save. Even using the difference between sleep and shutdown modes is enough to pay for the device I bought to measure all this.

I shall be doing other tests around the house now :-)

One of the many advantages of using a laptop as your main computer is the greatly reduced energy consumption.

Paul

Message #3 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andy Hewitt

Paul Russell wrote:

I shall be doing other tests around the house now :-)

One of the many advantages of using a laptop as your main computer is the greatly reduced energy consumption.

That's true of course, but I'd still need the external drives, printers, scanner, and USB stuff too.

And a laptop isn't really what I need either, I use Aperture on dual screens, and do some video editing too. Of course I have a lot of kit, but I built this all up before my current circumstances.

Even without the cost element, the environmental impact has to be phenomenal if you take the extremes of my test. I can start to see where this might have a serious impact if everybody in the country, or even world, was to at least sleep their computers more often.

One thing I ain't going to test though, and that's shutting down *every* time I leave my Mac for a while. I suspect that using sleep more could be beneficial, but you start to count small change then.

Message #4 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andrew Stephenson

Previously wildrover.andy@googlemail.com "Andy Hewitt" writes:

My system tested comprises of:

aa[...]aarr[...]rrgg[...]gghh[...]hh(!)

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

OTOH, ta for the numbers. Interesting, what we waste without an inkling.

Andrew Stephenson

Message #5 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Elliott Roper

Previously, Andy Hewitt wrote:

Even without the cost element, the environmental impact has to be phenomenal if you take the extremes of my test. I can start to see where this might have a serious impact if everybody in the country, or even world, was to at least sleep their computers more often.

Does your central heating system have a thermostat?
If yes, how efficient is it and what percentage of its energy source is nuclear or otherwise carbon neutral?
Keep that G5 rendering video through the winter and save the planet!

To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

Message #6 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andy Hewitt

Elliott Roper wrote:

Previously, Andy Hewitt wrote:

Even without the cost element, the environmental impact has to be phenomenal if you take the extremes of my test. I can start to see where this might have a serious impact if everybody in the country, or even world, was to at least sleep their computers more often.

Does your central heating system have a thermostat?

My new house doesn't have CH, just a fire and a couple of gas space heaters. I tend to run my house on the cool side anyway.

If yes, how efficient is it and what percentage of its energy source is nuclear or otherwise carbon neutral?

My energy is RSPB, and is 100% renewable sources.

Keep that G5 rendering video through the winter and save the planet!

LOL, yes it does put out some heat, and I rarely have to put any extra heat into the 'study' room :-)

Message #7 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andy Hewitt

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Previously wildrover.andy@googlemail.com "Andy Hewitt" writes:

My system tested comprises of:

aa[...]aarr[...]rrgg[...]gghh[...]hh(!)

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

Know what, I don't really care :-P

OTOH, ta for the numbers. Interesting, what we waste without an inkling.

HTH :-)

Message #8 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Chris Ridd

On 2007-07-05 18:32:52 +0100, Andy Hewitt said:

My energy is RSPB, and is 100% renewable sources.

There's a finite number of birds you can burn (roast?) though, surely?

Cheers,

Chris

Message #9 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Odie Ferrous

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Previously wildrover.andy@googlemail.com "Andy Hewitt" writes:

My system tested comprises of:

aa[...]aarr[...]rrgg[...]gghh[...]hh(!)

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

I was taught at school (in South Africa, when teaching standards were as good as anywhere else on the planet) that

...pedantic moments),

...is incorrect, and that the comma should be inside the bracket.

Does anyone have conclusive proof of which is correct?

Bit like "a myriad" as opposed to "myriad" - with the former used more often, whereas the latter is actually correct. Allegedly.

Odie
EOE

Message #10 - Posted 2007/07/05 - PeterD

Odie Ferrous wrote:

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

[...]

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

I was taught at school (in South Africa, when teaching standards were as good as anywhere else on the planet) that

...pedantic moments),

...is incorrect, and that the comma should be inside the bracket.

Que? Why on earth would you put the comma *inside* the bracket? If you remove the parenthesised comment entirely, the comma is still useful. It makes no sense at all inside the parenthesis.

Pd

Message #11 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andy Hewitt

Chris Ridd wrote:

On 2007-07-05 18:32:52 +0100, Andy Hewitt said:

My energy is RSPB, and is 100% renewable sources.

There's a finite number of birds you can burn (roast?) though, surely?

Badoom, tish.

Message #12 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Chris Ridd

On 2007-07-05 19:54:40 +0100, PeterD said:

Odie Ferrous wrote:

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

[...]

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

I was taught at school (in South Africa, when teaching standards were as good as anywhere else on the planet) that

...pedantic moments),

...is incorrect, and that the comma should be inside the bracket.

Que? Why on earth would you put the comma *inside* the bracket? If you remove the parenthesised comment entirely, the comma is still useful. It makes no sense at all inside the parenthesis.

It could be a US/UK thing. Apparently USAians put their periods inside their closing parentheses, while we put our full stops outside of ours.

Cheers,

Chris

Message #13 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andy Hewitt

PeterD wrote:

Odie Ferrous wrote:

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

[...]

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

I was taught at school (in South Africa, when teaching standards were as good as anywhere else on the planet) that

...pedantic moments),

...is incorrect, and that the comma should be inside the bracket.

Que? Why on earth would you put the comma *inside* the bracket? If you remove the parenthesised comment entirely, the comma is still useful. It makes no sense at all inside the parenthesis.

No he's correct, that is the true convention. However, it has become acceptable to put them outside things like brackets and speech marks as it does seem more 'readable' to most people (i.e. the thick general population).

Message #14 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Tim Streater

Previously, PeterD wrote:

Odie Ferrous wrote:

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

[...]

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

I was taught at school (in South Africa, when teaching standards were as good as anywhere else on the planet) that

...pedantic moments),

...is incorrect, and that the comma should be inside the bracket.

Que? Why on earth would you put the comma *inside* the bracket? If you remove the parenthesised comment entirely, the comma is still useful. It makes no sense at all inside the parenthesis.

My sediments entirely.

Message #15 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Ben Shimmin

Andy Hewitt <wildrover.andy@googlemail.com>:

PeterD wrote:

Odie Ferrous wrote:

[...]

I was taught at school (in South Africa, when teaching standards were as good as anywhere else on the planet) that

...pedantic moments),

...is incorrect, and that the comma should be inside the bracket.

Que? Why on earth would you put the comma *inside* the bracket? If you remove the parenthesised comment entirely, the comma is still useful. It makes no sense at all inside the parenthesis.

No he's correct, that is the true convention. However, it has become acceptable to put them outside things like brackets and speech marks as it does seem more 'readable' to most people (i.e. the thick general population).

I don't know where you read that, but it certainly isn't standard usage in British English. In American English, it is commonplace to write `this is a quote with the comma inside the quotation marks,' but that is not how it is done here. I don't think it would be correct even in American English to put a comma inside brackets in the above example.

b.

<bas@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `A man with priorities so far out of whack doesn't deserve such a fine automobile.' -- Ferris Bueller, on his day off

Message #16 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Paul Russell

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Elliott Roper wrote:

Keep that G5 rendering video through the winter and save the planet!

LOL, yes it does put out some heat, and I rarely have to put any extra heat into the 'study' room :-)

If you think about it all the power that goes into your computer system ends up being dissipated as heat, so the overall effect of this should be to reduce the total amount of heat that you need to provide to heat the house (assuming that you don't live in a hot climate where you are using A/C to cool the house down). So, in the winter at least, the cost of running the computer system should effectively be zero.

Paul

Message #17 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andy Hewitt

Ben Shimmin wrote:

No he's correct, that is the true convention. However, it has become acceptable to put them outside things like brackets and speech marks as it does seem more 'readable' to most people (i.e. the thick general population).

I don't know where you read that, but it certainly isn't standard usage in British English. In American English, it is commonplace to write `this is a quote with the comma inside the quotation marks,' but that is not how it is done here. I don't think it would be correct even in American English to put a comma inside brackets in the above example.

Nor do I!

Anyway, you are right in part. After a little Googling, and hardly a surprise that no one here can do grammar anymore, there's hardly any info at all for British-English, I did find some.

You are indeed correct on the speech marks point, but not the parenthesis. The A-E standard is to put the period inside the brackets. The B-E convention is to not put punctuation inside brackets when they are part of a sentence or a bibliography reference.

Message #18 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andy Hewitt

Paul Russell wrote:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Elliott Roper wrote:

Keep that G5 rendering video through the winter and save the planet!

LOL, yes it does put out some heat, and I rarely have to put any extra heat into the 'study' room :-)

If you think about it all the power that goes into your computer system ends up being dissipated as heat, so the overall effect of this should be to reduce the total amount of heat that you need to provide to heat the house (assuming that you don't live in a hot climate where you are using A/C to cool the house down). So, in the winter at least, the cost of running the computer system should effectively be zero.

Aye, indeed. And my lot os putting out around 350W most of the time, so used constantly, it should keep the room fairly warm :-).

BTW, I don't think Scarborough comes under 'hot climate'.

Message #19 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Paul Russell

Ben Shimmin wrote:

Andy Hewitt <wildrover.andy@googlemail.com>:

PeterD wrote:

Odie Ferrous wrote:

[...]

I was taught at school (in South Africa, when teaching standards were as good as anywhere else on the planet) that

...pedantic moments),

...is incorrect, and that the comma should be inside the bracket.

Que? Why on earth would you put the comma *inside* the bracket? If you remove the parenthesised comment entirely, the comma is still useful. It makes no sense at all inside the parenthesis.

No he's correct, that is the true convention. However, it has become acceptable to put them outside things like brackets and speech marks as it does seem more 'readable' to most people (i.e. the thick general population).

I don't know where you read that, but it certainly isn't standard usage in British English. In American English, it is commonplace to write `this is a quote with the comma inside the quotation marks,' but that is not how it is done here. I don't think it would be correct even in American English to put a comma inside brackets in the above example.

ISTR that the historical reason for putting the period inside quotes or brackets is that in the days of printing presses and metal type it was easy to lose a final period and putting it inside a larger character helped to secure it. Since these days we tend to use more modern technology for printing where periods getting lost are no longer an issue then the whole argument about "correct" placement is pretty much moot.

Paul

Message #20 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Ben Shimmin

Andy Hewitt <wildrover.andy@googlemail.com>:

Ben Shimmin wrote:

[...]

I don't know where you read that, but it certainly isn't standard usage in British English. In American English, it is commonplace to write `this is a quote with the comma inside the quotation marks,' but that is not how it is done here. I don't think it would be correct even in American English to put a comma inside brackets in the above example.

Nor do I!

Anyway, you are right in part. After a little Googling, and hardly a surprise that no one here can do grammar anymore, there's hardly any info at all for British-English, I did find some.

Why bother with Google? I have a copy of _Modern English Usage_ (3rd edition, ed. R.W. Burchfield) which answers all questions of grammar or usage I could ever have, and from a thoroughly English perspective.

You are guilty, incidentally, of what Burchfield terms the `comma splice'.

You are indeed correct on the speech marks point, but not the parenthesis. The A-E standard is to put the period inside the brackets.

I don't think this is correct.

Would an American really write the following:

Andy is my name (or a form of my name, anyway.) Another sentence starts here...

I find this hard to believe.

(If the sentence starts within the brackets, it is, of course, correct to put the `period' inside the brackets, thus.)

b.

<bas@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `Your normal speeder will panic and immediately pull over
to the side. This is wrong. It arouses contempt in the cop-heart. Make the bastard chase you.' -- Hunter S. Thompson

Message #21 - Posted 2007/07/05 - T i m

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:46:08 +0100, Andy Hewitt wrote:

Even without the cost element, the environmental impact has to be phenomenal if you take the extremes of my test. I can start to see where this might have a serious impact if everybody in the country, or even world, was to at least sleep their computers more often.

One thing I ain't going to test though, and that's shutting down *every* time I leave my Mac for a while. I suspect that using sleep more could be beneficial, but you start to count small change then.

FWIW we turn off all our machines (3 x PC 1 x Mac) at night and if we are leaving them for any length of time. Yes in the cooler months the heat might be handy but we would prefer to manage that via heating (or jumpers) than indirect heating from leaving gear on. Like you we don't have 'central heating' and rarely have any heat on anyway these days.

I am looking at getting some of those remote controlled mains sockets so I can easily kill all the background gear (printers, external drives, router, Gb switch, Cable modem etc). Similar on the TV STB / Freeview / Video / DVDRW etc as much of that doesn't have real 'on / off' switches.

All for a similar reason to you .. reducing the overheads (she goes onto basic sick pay after 6 weeks and if this new knee doesn't improve quickly real soon ...) ;-(

All the best ..

T i m.

Message #22 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andrew Stephenson

Previously wildrover.andy@googlemail.com "Andy Hewitt" writes:

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Previously wildrover.andy@googlemail.com "Andy Hewitt" writes:

My system tested comprises of:

aa[...]aarr[...]rrgg[...]gghh[...]hh(!)

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

Know what, I don't really care :-P

Oh, I realised _that_. Most folks who write/say "comprises of" are beyond help, one step away from wanting to buy M$ products. I wasn't talking to you, so much as those who might be ready to learn. :-Y

Andrew Stephenson

Message #23 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Elliott Roper

Previously, Paul Russell wrote:

ISTR that the historical reason for putting the period inside quotes or brackets is that in the days of printing presses and metal type it was easy to lose a final period and putting it inside a larger character helped to secure it. Since these days we tend to use more modern technology for printing where periods getting lost are no longer an issue then the whole argument about "correct" placement is pretty much moot.

That does not make a lot of sense.
1. Most paragraphs don't end in brackets or quotes. But do end in periods.
2. Most metal type was set a line at a time. The exception would be Monotype casters, but there was not much chance of any character getting out of line in those machines either. The slugs were held firmly between jaws except when the new line was pushed into place. That was a journey of little more than the width of a column of type. There was a fair mass of metal in each character slug. A period and a lower case L would be the same size for instance.

see http://www.katranpress.com/resources for some interesting movie clips of a Monotype caster at work.

To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

Message #24 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andy Hewitt

T i m wrote:

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:46:08 +0100, Andy Hewitt wrote:

Even without the cost element, the environmental impact has to be phenomenal if you take the extremes of my test. I can start to see where this might have a serious impact if everybody in the country, or even world, was to at least sleep their computers more often.

One thing I ain't going to test though, and that's shutting down *every* time I leave my Mac for a while. I suspect that using sleep more could be beneficial, but you start to count small change then.

FWIW we turn off all our machines (3 x PC 1 x Mac) at night and if we are leaving them for any length of time. Yes in the cooler months the heat might be handy but we would prefer to manage that via heating (or jumpers) than indirect heating from leaving gear on. Like you we don't have 'central heating' and rarely have any heat on anyway these days.

Actually, that wasn't really the plan :-)

I am looking at getting some of those remote controlled mains sockets so I can easily kill all the background gear (printers, external drives, router, Gb switch, Cable modem etc). Similar on the TV STB / Freeview / Video / DVDRW etc as much of that doesn't have real 'on / off' switches.

The STB and freeview stuff is a real killer, IIRC (somebody on here may have said it), they use as much whether on standby, or in use. FWIW, can't you just fit a switched extension block?

All for a similar reason to you .. reducing the overheads (she goes onto basic sick pay after 6 weeks and if this new knee doesn't improve quickly real soon ...) ;-(

All the best there.

Message #25 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andrew Stephenson

Previously odie_ferrous@hotmail.com "Odie Ferrous" writes:

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Previously wildrover.andy@googlemail.com "Andy Hewitt" writes:

My system tested comprises of:

aa[...]aarr[...]rrgg[...]gghh[...]hh(!)

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

I was taught at school (in South Africa, when teaching standards were as good as anywhere else on the planet) that

...pedantic moments),

...is incorrect, and that the comma should be inside the bracket.

Does anyone have conclusive proof of which is correct?

Actual _proof_ of correctness with punctuation is tricky. It has more to do with conventional practice, such as to enhance clarity in communications. The arrangement you mention sounds distinctly USian. I wrote it with comma-after-right_parenthesis as a purely structural choice. Viz:

<statement> :=
<opening> <parenthetical_remark> "," <closing>

<parenthetical_remark> :=
"(" <remark> ")"

Bit like "a myriad" as opposed to "myriad" - with the former used more often, whereas the latter is actually correct. Allegedly.

That one's easy, if you recall that (AFAIK) "myriad" simply means "ten thousand". If "a ten thousand" suits your sentence, then "a myriad" should. If not, then you need "myriad". QED? --
Andrew Stephenson

Message #26 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andrew Stephenson

Previously chrisridd@mac.com "Chris Ridd" writes:

It could be a US/UK thing. Apparently USAians put their periods inside their closing parentheses, while we put our full stops outside of ours.

The major mystifying USian practice, which sometimes clashes with sense and sometimes does not, is placement of commas and stops vs quote marks. In the case of

He said: "We'll never understand USians. Never, ever."

"We'll never understand USians," he said. "Never, ever."

it sort of feels right to do it as shown. But in the case of

There is punctuation and there is "punctuation".

we Brits do it as shown but many USians would put the stop before the closing quote mark. _That_ I'd fight them on, as plain daft. --
Andrew Stephenson

Message #27 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Paul Russell

Elliott Roper wrote:

Previously, Paul Russell wrote:

ISTR that the historical reason for putting the period inside quotes or brackets is that in the days of printing presses and metal type it was easy to lose a final period and putting it inside a larger character helped to secure it. Since these days we tend to use more modern technology for printing where periods getting lost are no longer an issue then the whole argument about "correct" placement is pretty much moot.

That does not make a lot of sense.
1. Most paragraphs don't end in brackets or quotes. But do end in periods.
2. Most metal type was set a line at a time. The exception would be Monotype casters, but there was not much chance of any character getting out of line in those machines either. The slugs were held firmly between jaws except when the new line was pushed into place. That was a journey of little more than the width of a column of type. There was a fair mass of metal in each character slug. A period and a lower case L would be the same size for instance.

Google turns up quite a few hits which seems to suggest that there used to be a problem with periods outside quotes in the days of metal type, and that was why, in the US at least, they started to put the period inside the quotes. None of these references seem to be "authoritative", so I've no idea whether this is just a popular myth or not.

Paul

Message #28 - Posted 2007/07/05 - D.M. Procida

Ben Shimmin wrote:

You are guilty, incidentally, of what Burchfield terms the `comma splice'.

She was quite funny at the NME - in small doses - and really since then I don't think she has had anything worth much of anyone's time. Even her brief lesbian period was more baffling than actually interesting.

Daniele

Message #29 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Ben Shimmin

Andrew Stephenson <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk>:

Previously odie_ferrous@hotmail.com "Odie Ferrous" writes:

[...]

Bit like "a myriad" as opposed to "myriad" - with the former used more often, whereas the latter is actually correct. Allegedly.

That one's easy, if you recall that (AFAIK) "myriad" simply means "ten thousand". If "a ten thousand" suits your sentence, then "a myriad" should. If not, then you need "myriad". QED?

I think the standard quibble is as to whether `myriad' should be used as an adjective or as a noun. I am happy to use it either way.

b.

<bas@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `Finally, remember to include Linux users in your prayers tonight. As individuals we may not be able to change people's minds, but the Bible teaches that God can make any sinner repent.' -- ShelleyTheRepublican.com

Message #30 - Posted 2007/07/05 - T i m

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 22:25:19 +0100, Andy Hewitt wrote:

I am looking at getting some of those remote controlled mains sockets so I can easily kill all the background gear (printers, external drives, router, Gb switch, Cable modem etc). Similar on the TV STB / Freeview / Video / DVDRW etc as much of that doesn't have real 'on / off' switches.

The STB and freeview stuff is a real killer, IIRC (somebody on here may have said it), they use as much whether on standby, or in use.

Yep, and another sigh re how much energy something may use is how warm it runs (electronics kit rather than toasters etc). My NTL STB and FV boxes run fairly warm.

FWIW,

can't you just fit a switched extension block?

I could, but the positions wouldn't be ideal (but I still might just do that with a re-work and both Jenny and Sue have such on their PC/Mac's).

All for a similar reason to you .. reducing the overheads (she goes onto basic sick pay after 6 weeks and if this new knee doesn't improve quickly real soon ...) ;-(

All the best there.

Cheers Andy.

All the best ..

T i m

Message #31 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andy Hewitt

T i m wrote:

Yep, and another sigh re how much energy something may use is how warm it runs (electronics kit rather than toasters etc). My NTL STB and FV boxes run fairly warm.

Indeed, and routers get bloody warm too.

FWIW,

can't you just fit a switched extension block?

I could, but the positions wouldn't be ideal (but I still might just do that with a re-work and both Jenny and Sue have such on their PC/Mac's).

Well, if you thinking of saving money, you might find the difference between on and asleep, and totally off, is not as much as the difference between a cheap switched four way, and a remote switcher - unless you calculate very long term.

I spent a bit of effort looking into this kind of thing at work. There was always this assumption that a diesel car is cheaper to own than a petrol car. It is, if you keep it for more than 30,000 miles, which most private owners don't.

Just worth considering.

Message #32 - Posted 2007/07/05 - Andy Hewitt

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

Know what, I don't really care :-P

Oh, I realised _that_. Most folks who write/say "comprises of" are beyond help, one step away from wanting to buy M$ products. I wasn't talking to you, so much as those who might be ready to learn. :-Y

FWIW, I am bothered about using good English where I can, and where my ability allows, although I will make the effort to look things up if they're really important.

However, when I'm writing informally, I don't bother worrying about grammar, especially when it isn't going to affect the understanding of the subject.

FWIW, I find it actually quite frustrating to be corrected about grammar, when it really doesn't matter and the general meaning is understood by anybody reading it.

This thread has already digressed into a long argument about use of English, and this could easily be applied to most threads in most newsgroups. If we had to worry about correct grammar, rather than the content as a whole, we probably wouldn't talk about anything else.

Perhaps we should start a new group - uk.advocacy.grammar maybe? ;-)

Message #33 - Posted 2007/07/05 - T i m

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 23:38:38 +0100, Andy Hewitt wrote:

T i m wrote:

Yep, and another sigh re how much energy something may use is how warm it runs (electronics kit rather than toasters etc). My NTL STB and FV boxes run fairly warm.

Indeed, and routers get bloody warm too.

They can. My Belkin router (currently just an AP) runs positively cool and this Fritz!Box runs just warm. The 8p Gb switch runs warmer than the 8p 10/100.

FWIW,

can't you just fit a switched extension block?

I could, but the positions wouldn't be ideal (but I still might just do that with a re-work and both Jenny and Sue have such on their PC/Mac's).

Well, if you thinking of saving money, you might find the difference between on and asleep, and totally off, is not as much as the difference between a cheap switched four way, and a remote switcher - unless you calculate very long term.

Possibly. Most of my gear is now plugged into multi way surge protectors and some have a main switch (some have individual switches) but most are well out of easy reach (atm). In some locations I was going to install a time switch that would automatically turn each 'bank' of stuff (PC 'system' TV / Video 'system') off at say 2am and not back on at all, relying on us doing that when actually required.

I spent a bit of effort looking into this kind of thing at work. There was always this assumption that a diesel car is cheaper to own than a petrol car. It is, if you keep it for more than 30,000 miles, which most private owners don't.

Wasn't that when there was more of a price and performance difference between them Andy (not that I've ever bought a new car ..). I had the Sierra 23 years and 90,000 miles (and it cost *me* £25 to buy), the Rovers done nearly 200k (but did cost me £100). ;-)

We are on 'Economy 7' here so the dishwasher, tumble dryer, washing machine etc come on at night. We actually use most units on the economy rate. ;-)

Just worth considering.

Oh it's all worth considering (we have used mainly low energy lamps in most locations since they first came out. A couple are over 10 years old!). We have always tried to live 'economically' then what money we did have we could spend on doing the things we really enjoy.

(One of the) reasons I got the VoIP router recently was to be able to drop our second (NTL) telephone line (sorta left over from my dial-up days and Jenny's older half sister). That is bundled with the Cable TV deal but since Virgin took over and we lost Sky1 (and Star Trek, Stargate etc) we don't really use the cable chans at all. If we drop both (and go VoIP / Freeview) I might be happy to put the remaining service (Broadband) on DD (fixed amount) saving £18 / month for the phone / TV package and the £5/m 'penalty' for paying fast and in full but online?

.. Set daughters b/f up with a hardware VoIP solution and that will also cut down on call / txt charges on her PAYG mobile. ;-)

I'm also thinking of taking up an external mail host so that if we do dump Virgin cable (if they don't co-operate in the future) we could go ADSL (Fritz!Box 7140 does both cable and ADSL) and then we don't have to muck about with other email addresses with a new ISP.

Seeing that the interest rates are going up again reminds me how lucky we are not to have a mortgage, loans or debts (But now an extra mouth to feed in the form of (Jenny's) Ball Python apparently)?

All the best ..

T i m

Message #34 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Andy Hewitt

T i m wrote:

Well, if you thinking of saving money, you might find the difference between on and asleep, and totally off, is not as much as the difference between a cheap switched four way, and a remote switcher - unless you calculate very long term.

Possibly. Most of my gear is now plugged into multi way surge protectors and some have a main switch (some have individual switches) but most are well out of easy reach (atm). In some locations I was going to install a time switch that would automatically turn each 'bank' of stuff (PC 'system' TV / Video 'system') off at say 2am and not back on at all, relying on us doing that when actually required.

I spent a bit of effort looking into this kind of thing at work. There was always this assumption that a diesel car is cheaper to own than a petrol car. It is, if you keep it for more than 30,000 miles, which most private owners don't.

Wasn't that when there was more of a price and performance difference between them Andy (not that I've ever bought a new car ..). I had the Sierra 23 years and 90,000 miles (and it cost *me* £25 to buy), the Rovers done nearly 200k (but did cost me £100). ;-)

Erm, old bangers excluded, they're not exactly the most fuel efficient things anyway ;-)

However, if you want real figures, I was looking at the average Joe that buys a new car every three years, and using data that I know (i.e. Honda Civic).

The difference between a new Civic Diesel and a Petrol is about £1200, and there's about £100 difference in maintenance costs too, so a total three year difference of about £1300 (I won't worry about residual value for now, as they're not three years old yet).

The cost of running each is, as you say, the same per gallon now, and of course the diesel is more economical by some 11mpg. However, that works out that the £1300 saving isn't made until 60,000 miles is reached.

We are on 'Economy 7' here so the dishwasher, tumble dryer, washing machine etc come on at night. We actually use most units on the economy rate. ;-)

I never looked into it that much, but don't you pay two standing charges?

Just worth considering.

Oh it's all worth considering (we have used mainly low energy lamps in most locations since they first came out. A couple are over 10 years old!). We have always tried to live 'economically' then what money we did have we could spend on doing the things we really enjoy.

(One of the) reasons I got the VoIP router recently was to be able to drop our second (NTL) telephone line (sorta left over from my dial-up days and Jenny's older half sister). That is bundled with the Cable TV deal but since Virgin took over and we lost Sky1 (and Star Trek, Stargate etc) we don't really use the cable chans at all. If we drop both (and go VoIP / Freeview) I might be happy to put the remaining service (Broadband) on DD (fixed amount) saving £18 / month for the phone / TV package and the £5/m 'penalty' for paying fast and in full but online?

I'm looking at my costs as well, but can only find very small savings, and possibly lots of aggravation. I can't really get any great savings unless someone gets an unbundled package here.

.. Set daughters b/f up with a hardware VoIP solution and that will also cut down on call / txt charges on her PAYG mobile. ;-)

I'm also thinking of taking up an external mail host so that if we do dump Virgin cable (if they don't co-operate in the future) we could go ADSL (Fritz!Box 7140 does both cable and ADSL) and then we don't have to muck about with other email addresses with a new ISP.

That's why I went Google some time ago.

Seeing that the interest rates are going up again reminds me how lucky we are not to have a mortgage, loans or debts (But now an extra mouth to feed in the form of (Jenny's) Ball Python apparently)?

Hmm, that's just a dead rat every couple of weeks thought, isn't it? ;-)

Message #35 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Elliott Roper

Previously, Paul Russell wrote:

Elliott Roper wrote:

Previously, Paul Russell wrote:

ISTR that the historical reason for putting the period inside quotes or brackets is that in the days of printing presses and metal type it was easy to lose a final period and putting it inside a larger character helped to secure it. Since these days we tend to use more modern technology for printing where periods getting lost are no longer an issue then the whole argument about "correct" placement is pretty much moot.

That does not make a lot of sense.
1. Most paragraphs don't end in brackets or quotes. But do end in periods.
2. Most metal type was set a line at a time. The exception would be Monotype casters, but there was not much chance of any character getting out of line in those machines either. The slugs were held firmly between jaws except when the new line was pushed into place. That was a journey of little more than the width of a column of type. There was a fair mass of metal in each character slug. A period and a lower case L would be the same size for instance.

Google turns up quite a few hits which seems to suggest that there used to be a problem with periods outside quotes in the days of metal type, and that was why, in the US at least, they started to put the period inside the quotes. None of these references seem to be "authoritative", so I've no idea whether this is just a popular myth or not.

Hmm. So I went looking too. It is hard to believe the "delicate punctuation" block of type story. The damn things are like icebergs. The bit sticking out to be inked is a tiny fraction of the whole block. Tiny I tell you! I guess they might have worried with hand set wooden type, like having the dot knocked off the rest of the block. Maybe it stems from the time before hot metal typesetting machines? Wooden type was re-used, as was hand set metal on Ludlow sticks for headlines. But of course headline blocks are massive. You would have to attack the thing with a hammer and cold chisel to knock a dot off.

Hot metal type was normally used once only, to make a "flong", which was a paper-mache right-way round image of the page which was bent to cast a "stereo" - half-cylindrical shell which was clamped with its mate to the cylinder of a rotary letterpress for high volume work such as a newspaper.

I saw one quote on Google where it claimed the period inside quotes was done for appearance of justified text, but that is pure malarkey. Nearly all the time a period at the right of a line of type is finishing a paragraph. And that line is usually set "quad left".

If it ain't left over from wooden typography, then it must just be a daft fashion. You know what Seppos are like!

To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

Message #36 - Posted 2007/07/06 - PeterD

D.M. Procida wrote:

Ben Shimmin wrote:

You are guilty, incidentally, of what Burchfield terms the `comma splice'.

She was quite funny at the NME - in small doses - and really since then I don't think she has had anything worth much of anyone's time. Even her brief lesbian period was more baffling than actually interesting.

You are fake steve and i claim my five pounds.

Pd

Message #37 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Chris Ridd

On 2007-07-05 22:22:59 +0100, Andrew Stephenson said:

Previously wildrover.andy@googlemail.com "Andy Hewitt" writes:

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Previously wildrover.andy@googlemail.com "Andy Hewitt" writes:

My system tested comprises of:

aa[...]aarr[...]rrgg[...]gghh[...]hh(!)

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

Know what, I don't really care :-P

Oh, I realised _that_. Most folks who write/say "comprises of" are beyond help, one step away from wanting to buy M$ products.

Word's grammar checker doesn't object to the phrase "comprises of". QED :-)

Cheers,

Chris

Message #38 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Chris Ridd

On 2007-07-05 22:32:32 +0100, Andrew Stephenson said:

Previously chrisridd@mac.com "Chris Ridd" writes:

It could be a US/UK thing. Apparently USAians put their periods inside their closing parentheses, while we put our full stops outside of ours.

The major mystifying USian practice, which sometimes clashes with sense and sometimes does not, is placement of commas and stops vs quote marks. In the case of

Perhaps I confused parentheses and quote marks, but I do think they use the same rule.

He said: "We'll never understand USians. Never, ever."

"We'll never understand USians," he said. "Never, ever."

it sort of feels right to do it as shown. But in the case of

It looks OK to me, maybe just because I see lots of it.

There is punctuation and there is "punctuation".

we Brits do it as shown but many USians would put the stop before the closing quote mark. _That_ I'd fight them on, as plain daft.

I'm not really hung up about it. I can't see any compelling reason to put it before or after, though I'd try to be consistent about it. Perhaps "lack of consistency" is one of the rules ;-)

Cheers,

Chris

Message #39 - Posted 2007/07/06 - T i m

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 01:17:55 +0100, Andy Hewitt wrote:

Wasn't that when there was more of a price and performance difference between them Andy (not that I've ever bought a new car ..). I had the Sierra 23 years and 90,000 miles (and it cost *me* £25 to buy), the Rovers done nearly 200k (but did cost me £100). ;-)

Erm, old bangers excluded, they're not exactly the most fuel efficient things anyway ;-)

Ahem, I don't think ~50 mpg from the Rover would be considered 'thirsty'? ;-)

However, if you want real figures, I was looking at the average Joe that buys a new car every three years, and using data that I know (i.e. Honda Civic).

Ok, Company stuff. I don't know anyone who buys a new car every 3 years but it might be I don't mix with the same level of golf course as you Andy .. <weg>. Oh I tell a lie, a neighbour has a 'Mobility' car and I think she has to change it every 3 years (last old one looked brand new and had done delivery miles when it went).

The difference between a new Civic Diesel and a Petrol is about £1200, and there's about £100 difference in maintenance costs too, so a total three year difference of about £1300 (I won't worry about residual value for now, as they're not three years old yet).

But don't the diesels (generally) have greater service intervals?

The cost of running each is, as you say, the same per gallon now, and of course the diesel is more economical by some 11mpg. However, that works out that the £1300 saving isn't made until 60,000 miles is reached.

Ah.

We are on 'Economy 7' here so the dishwasher, tumble dryer, washing machine etc come on at night. We actually use most units on the economy rate. ;-)

I never looked into it that much, but don't you pay two standing charges?

I think we did at the beginning (for the extra meter etc) but I think it was a couple of quid a quarter and would have been easily compensated by those things that would be on 24/7 anyway like the fridge and freezer. At the time I was also running my electric car and that also went on at night.

I'm looking at my costs as well, but can only find very small savings, and possibly lots of aggravation. I can't really get any great savings unless someone gets an unbundled package here.

Yeah, that seems to be a biggie. I think some ISP's (NTL I know were one) who did a reduced service cost for low income families?

.. Set daughters b/f up with a hardware VoIP solution and that will also cut down on call / txt charges on her PAYG mobile. ;-)

I'm also thinking of taking up an external mail host so that if we do dump Virgin cable (if they don't co-operate in the future) we could go ADSL (Fritz!Box 7140 does both cable and ADSL) and then we don't have to muck about with other email addresses with a new ISP.

That's why I went Google some time ago.

Is it a SMTP/POP service though Andy and what is their message store limit do you know?

Seeing that the interest rates are going up again reminds me how lucky we are not to have a mortgage, loans or debts (But now an extra mouth to feed in the form of (Jenny's) Ball Python apparently)?

Hmm, that's just a dead rat every couple of weeks thought, isn't it? ;-)

Well, 'pinky' (mouse) at the moment and one a week I understand but yes, shouldn't be too much of a burden. I might get it to work for it's keep when it get's a bit bigger ... that popping up out of the long grass might be a nice surprise for other peoples furry pets when they go to use our garden as a toilet!

Apparently a guy in the States had two pets, a Pitbull dog and a Python. The Python got out and now he only has one pet ...

All the best ..

T i m

Message #40 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Andy Hewitt

T i m wrote:

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 01:17:55 +0100, Andy Hewitt wrote:

Wasn't that when there was more of a price and performance difference between them Andy (not that I've ever bought a new car ..). I had the Sierra 23 years and 90,000 miles (and it cost *me* £25 to buy), the Rovers done nearly 200k (but did cost me £100). ;-)

Erm, old bangers excluded, they're not exactly the most fuel efficient things anyway ;-)

Ahem, I don't think ~50 mpg from the Rover would be considered 'thirsty'? ;-)

True, but how *clean* are the emissions?

However, if you want real figures, I was looking at the average Joe that buys a new car every three years, and using data that I know (i.e. Honda Civic).

Ok, Company stuff. I don't know anyone who buys a new car every 3 years but it might be I don't mix with the same level of golf course as you Andy .. <weg>. Oh I tell a lie, a neighbour has a 'Mobility' car and I think she has to change it every 3 years (last old one looked brand new and had done delivery miles when it went).

There are plenty out there, and of course a car showroom is where they all are :-)

The difference between a new Civic Diesel and a Petrol is about £1200, and there's about £100 difference in maintenance costs too, so a total three year difference of about £1300 (I won't worry about residual value for now, as they're not three years old yet).

But don't the diesels (generally) have greater service intervals?

No, they are generally the same as petrols, but they usually have more filters changed, and carry more oil in the sump, so each service cost is slightly higher.

The cost of running each is, as you say, the same per gallon now, and of course the diesel is more economical by some 11mpg. However, that works out that the £1300 saving isn't made until 60,000 miles is reached.

Ah.

Indeed. I now apply this same principle to anything I want to save money on, whether it be bog rolls or saving energy or whatever. It's amazing how often you don't actually save anything at all by trying to go cheap.

We are on 'Economy 7' here so the dishwasher, tumble dryer, washing machine etc come on at night. We actually use most units on the economy rate. ;-)

I never looked into it that much, but don't you pay two standing charges?

I think we did at the beginning (for the extra meter etc) but I think it was a couple of quid a quarter and would have been easily compensated by those things that would be on 24/7 anyway like the fridge and freezer. At the time I was also running my electric car and that also went on at night.

Righto. I tend to have most stuff turned off overnight, except for recording TV and stuff like that. I probably could run the washing stuff overnight, but I'm not sure how much it'd really save. I might do some testing on those too.

I'm looking at my costs as well, but can only find very small savings, and possibly lots of aggravation. I can't really get any great savings unless someone gets an unbundled package here.

Yeah, that seems to be a biggie. I think some ISP's (NTL I know were one) who did a reduced service cost for low income families?

Well, I told Sky my own circumstances, and they didn't offer anything - other than 3 months on my existing package at a lower rate. Could be worth a look around though.

That's why I went Google some time ago.

Is it a SMTP/POP service though Andy and what is their message store limit do you know?

Google does Webmail and SMTP/POP without any problems - go and check it out - even any mail you send using POP gets stored on the web server. The current storage limit is about 2873.023960MB - and it rises continuously.

Seeing that the interest rates are going up again reminds me how lucky we are not to have a mortgage, loans or debts (But now an extra mouth to feed in the form of (Jenny's) Ball Python apparently)?

Hmm, that's just a dead rat every couple of weeks thought, isn't it? ;-)

Well, 'pinky' (mouse) at the moment and one a week I understand but yes, shouldn't be too much of a burden. I might get it to work for it's keep when it get's a bit bigger ... that popping up out of the long grass might be a nice surprise for other peoples furry pets when they go to use our garden as a toilet!

Apparently a guy in the States had two pets, a Pitbull dog and a Python. The Python got out and now he only has one pet ...

LOL, now you have me tempted ;-)

Cheers.

Message #41 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Paul Russell

Elliott Roper wrote:

Previously, Paul Russell wrote:

Google turns up quite a few hits which seems to suggest that there used to be a problem with periods outside quotes in the days of metal type, and that was why, in the US at least, they started to put the period inside the quotes. None of these references seem to be "authoritative", so I've no idea whether this is just a popular myth or not.

Hmm. So I went looking too. It is hard to believe the "delicate punctuation" block of type story. The damn things are like icebergs. The bit sticking out to be inked is a tiny fraction of the whole block. Tiny I tell you! I guess they might have worried with hand set wooden type, like having the dot knocked off the rest of the block. Maybe it stems from the time before hot metal typesetting machines? Wooden type was re-used, as was hand set metal on Ludlow sticks for headlines. But of course headline blocks are massive. You would have to attack the thing with a hammer and cold chisel to knock a dot off.

Hot metal type was normally used once only, to make a "flong", which was a paper-mache right-way round image of the page which was bent to cast a "stereo" - half-cylindrical shell which was clamped with its mate to the cylinder of a rotary letterpress for high volume work such as a newspaper.

I saw one quote on Google where it claimed the period inside quotes was done for appearance of justified text, but that is pure malarkey. Nearly all the time a period at the right of a line of type is finishing a paragraph. And that line is usually set "quad left".

If it ain't left over from wooden typography, then it must just be a daft fashion. You know what Seppos are like!

Interesting. It sounds like we need a ruling from snopes.com on this.

Paul

Message #42 - Posted 2007/07/06 - T i m

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:15:44 +0100, Andy Hewitt wrote:

Erm, old bangers excluded, they're not exactly the most fuel efficient things anyway ;-)

Ahem, I don't think ~50 mpg from the Rover would be considered 'thirsty'? ;-)

True, but how *clean* are the emissions?

Not sure, but there are half as many of them compared with similar that only does 25 mpg? And with the Sierra the energy consumed (pollution created) during it's construction was at least spread over 23 years .. ;-)

However, if you want real figures, I was looking at the average Joe that buys a new car every three years, and using data that I know (i.e. Honda Civic).

Ok, Company stuff. I don't know anyone who buys a new car every 3 years but it might be I don't mix with the same level of golf course as you Andy .. <weg>. Oh I tell a lie, a neighbour has a 'Mobility' car and I think she has to change it every 3 years (last old one looked brand new and had done delivery miles when it went).

There are plenty out there, and of course a car showroom is where they all are :-)

I've heard about such places but wasn't sure they really existed. I thought they were grown in huge flocks on large car parks and fields like I've seen on the telly?

But don't the diesels (generally) have greater service intervals?

No, they are generally the same as petrols, but they usually have more filters changed,

True, mine has a fuel filter so you can add another £2.30 for the filter and whatever 10 mins costs in labour. ;-)

and carry more oil in the sump, so each service cost is slightly higher.

Talking of that .. my mate did an oil change on a Boxter the other day .. nearly 9l of Mobil 1 .. £90 cost (oh and that was a petrol version).

The cost of running each is, as you say, the same per gallon now, and of course the diesel is more economical by some 11mpg. However, that works out that the £1300 saving isn't made until 60,000 miles is reached.

Ah.

Indeed. I now apply this same principle to anything I want to save money on, whether it be bog rolls or saving energy or whatever. It's amazing how often you don't actually save anything at all by trying to go cheap.

True, 'value for money' rather than straight cost.

Righto. I tend to have most stuff turned off overnight, except for recording TV and stuff like that. I probably could run the washing stuff overnight, but I'm not sure how much it'd really save. I might do some testing on those too.

Well, if we say (guess) our off peak units are 5p and on peak ~15p [1] and we have used since the new digital meter was fitted (checks) 15,000 off peak and 14,000 on peak how much have we saved so far?

That's why I went Google some time ago.

Is it a SMTP/POP service though Andy and what is their message store limit do you know?

Google does Webmail and SMTP/POP without any problems - go and check it out - even any mail you send using POP gets stored on the web server.

Ok ta. Is it free?

The current storage limit is about 2873.023960MB - and it rises continuously.

Is that 'roughly' Andy?

Apparently a guy in the States had two pets, a Pitbull dog and a Python. The Python got out and now he only has one pet ...

LOL, now you have me tempted ;-)

LOL

All the best ..

T i m

[1] We seem to have daytime primary units at 17.55p each and secondary at 10.52p. We use them at the rate of about 1:5. I'm not sure what the 'std' flat rate would be though (the day rate for us used to be the same as for non E7 users but we had the slightly extra rental (£2/q or summat)).

Message #43 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Debbie Wilson

Andy Hewitt wrote:

My energy is RSPB, and is 100% renewable sources.

My dad once went to Trinidad as part of his work (chemical engineer), for a potential scheme to make power from chicken shit. Yours must be a posher version of that. Barn owls, maybe?

Deb.

http://www.scientific-art.com

"He looked a fierce and quarrelsome cat, but claw he never would; He only bit the ones he loved, because they tasted good." S. Greenfield

Message #44 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Chris Ridd

On 2007-07-06 09:53:53 +0100, Debbie Wilson said:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

My energy is RSPB, and is 100% renewable sources.

My dad once went to Trinidad as part of his work (chemical engineer), for a potential scheme to make power from chicken shit. Yours must be a posher version of that. Barn owls, maybe?

Owls would be far too small.

Cheers,

Chris

Message #45 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Andy Hewitt

Debbie Wilson wrote:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

My energy is RSPB, and is 100% renewable sources.

My dad once went to Trinidad as part of his work (chemical engineer), for a potential scheme to make power from chicken shit. Yours must be a posher version of that. Barn owls, maybe?

<groan> ;-)

Message #46 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Andy Hewitt

T i m wrote:

True, but how *clean* are the emissions?

Not sure, but there are half as many of them compared with similar that only does 25 mpg? And with the Sierra the energy consumed (pollution created) during it's construction was at least spread over 23 years .. ;-)

And created in somebody elses back yard anyway ;-)

There are plenty out there, and of course a car showroom is where they all are :-)

I've heard about such places but wasn't sure they really existed. I thought they were grown in huge flocks on large car parks and fields like I've seen on the telly?

LOL, only with things like Fiats, with the Hondas they have a greater demand than supply.

But don't the diesels (generally) have greater service intervals?

No, they are generally the same as petrols, but they usually have more filters changed,

True, mine has a fuel filter so you can add another £2.30 for the filter and whatever 10 mins costs in labour. ;-)

Not so easy nowadays though (let's forget about oldies for now, and look to the future), the modern ones are much more expensive, and because they are part of these new high pressure systems, they can't be fitted DIY either.

Not to mention the air filters are changed more often too.

and carry more oil in the sump, so each service cost is slightly higher.

Talking of that .. my mate did an oil change on a Boxter the other day .. nearly 9l of Mobil 1 .. £90 cost (oh and that was a petrol version).

Aye, although how many diesel Boxsters are there?

Indeed. I now apply this same principle to anything I want to save money on, whether it be bog rolls or saving energy or whatever. It's amazing how often you don't actually save anything at all by trying to go cheap.

True, 'value for money' rather than straight cost.

Yup.

Righto. I tend to have most stuff turned off overnight, except for recording TV and stuff like that. I probably could run the washing stuff overnight, but I'm not sure how much it'd really save. I might do some testing on those too.

Well, if we say (guess) our off peak units are 5p and on peak ~15p [1] and we have used since the new digital meter was fitted (checks) 15,000 off peak and 14,000 on peak how much have we saved so far?

Well, you paid about £285 for those units, but could have paid £435 if you didn't have E7, so you saved about £150. However, the same number of units on my single rate would have been £252.

Your average cost per unit is 9.8p, whereas I'm paying 8.71p.

Google does Webmail and SMTP/POP without any problems - go and check it out - even any mail you send using POP gets stored on the web server.

Ok ta. Is it free?

Yup, just like MSN or Yahoo, but IME it's been very reliable, and has an excellent spam filter too.

The current storage limit is about 2873.023960MB - and it rises continuously.

Is that 'roughly' Andy?

That was exact at the time I copied and pasted it :-). But it increases all the time.

http://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en-GB/about.html

Message #47 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Sak Wathanasin

Previously, Andy Hewitt wrote:

No he's correct, that is the true convention. However, it has become acceptable to put them outside things like brackets and speech marks as it does seem more 'readable' to most people (i.e. the thick general population).

The convention only applied if the parenthetical remark contained a whole sentence. (This would be an example of such a remark.)

I don't think it has ever applied to the lighter stops in the middle of a sentence. As Andrew wrote, if you remove the brackets (and everything inside them), the sentence should still stand. Carey (in "Mind The Stop") is fairly explicit on this point (page 70 in the edition that I have):

"No stops are, in fact, admissible inside brackets except such as properly belong to the actual words bracketed."

--

Sak Wathanasin
Network Analysis Limited
http://www.network-analysis.ltd.uk

Message #48 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Sak Wathanasin

Previously, Paul Russell wrote:

ISTR that the historical reason for putting the period inside quotes or brackets is that in the days of printing presses and metal type it was easy to lose a final period and putting it inside a larger character

Really? Not even in my fairly old copy of "Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers" does it say this.

--

Sak Wathanasin
Network Analysis Limited
http://www.network-analysis.ltd.uk

Message #49 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Sak Wathanasin

Previously, Chris Ridd wrote:

I'm not really hung up about it. I can't see any compelling reason to put it before or after, though I'd try to be consistent about it. Perhaps "lack of consistency" is one of the rules ;-)

You could apply logic. If the remark being quoted is a complete sentence, the stop should go inside the quote marks, otherwise it goes outside.

--

Sak Wathanasin
Network Analysis Limited
http://www.network-analysis.ltd.uk

Message #50 - Posted 2007/07/06 - T i m

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:20:18 +0100, Andy Hewitt wrote:

T i m wrote:

True, but how *clean* are the emissions?

Not sure, but there are half as many of them compared with similar that only does 25 mpg? And with the Sierra the energy consumed (pollution created) during it's construction was at least spread over 23 years .. ;-)

And created in somebody elses back yard anyway ;-)

Yep, 20 miles away in Dagenham (and I think in those days Ford did actually make many of the parts themselves and on site).

I've heard about such places but wasn't sure they really existed. I thought they were grown in huge flocks on large car parks and fields like I've seen on the telly?

LOL, only with things like Fiats, with the Hondas they have a greater demand than supply.

<weg>

True, mine has a fuel filter so you can add another £2.30 for the filter and whatever 10 mins costs in labour. ;-)

Not so easy nowadays though (let's forget about oldies for now, and look to the future), the modern ones are much more expensive, and because they are part of these new high pressure systems, they can't be fitted DIY either.

Ah, I don't like this 'future' you speak of then .. when a car can be 'written off' because of a 10p component failing in a £750 engine management computer .. ;-(

Not to mention the air filters are changed more often too.

K

and carry more oil in the sump, so each service cost is slightly higher.

Talking of that .. my mate did an oil change on a Boxter the other day .. nearly 9l of Mobil 1 .. £90 cost (oh and that was a petrol version).

Aye, although how many diesel Boxsters are there?

42?

Well, if we say (guess) our off peak units are 5p and on peak ~15p [1] and we have used since the new digital meter was fitted (checks) 15,000 off peak and 14,000 on peak how much have we saved so far?

Well, you paid about £285 for those units, but could have paid £435 if you didn't have E7, so you saved about £150.

Isn't that £1500 Andy (15,000 x 10p)?

However, the same number of
units on my single rate would have been £252.

Your average cost per unit is 9.8p, whereas I'm paying 8.71p.

Ah, but you can get that cheap 'Northern lekky now can't you? (who are you with though .. we are 'still' with whoever Eastern Electricity > Powergen > e-on is now). Not been 'rate tarts' as yet and we wanted to avoid the 'ag' that some have experienced with double billing or no power etc.

Google does Webmail and SMTP/POP without any problems - go and check it out - even any mail you send using POP gets stored on the web server.

Ok ta. Is it free?

Yup, just like MSN or Yahoo, but IME it's been very reliable, and has an excellent spam filter too.

Ok thanks .. I will check it out.

The current storage limit is about 2873.023960MB - and it rises continuously.

Is that 'roughly' Andy?

That was exact at the time I copied and pasted it :-). But it increases all the time.

LOL

Al the best ..

T i m

Message #51 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Chris Ridd

On 2007-07-06 10:43:42 +0100, Sak Wathanasin said:

Previously, Chris Ridd wrote:

I'm not really hung up about it. I can't see any compelling reason to put it before or after, though I'd try to be consistent about it. Perhaps "lack of consistency" is one of the rules ;-)

You could apply logic. If the remark being quoted is a complete sentence, the stop should go inside the quote marks, otherwise it goes outside.

Logic doesn't always apply to spelling, grammar, or punctuation :-(

Cheers,

Chris

Message #52 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Paul Russell

Sak Wathanasin wrote:

Previously, Paul Russell wrote:

ISTR that the historical reason for putting the period inside quotes or brackets is that in the days of printing presses and metal type it was easy to lose a final period and putting it inside a larger character

Really? Not even in my fairly old copy of "Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers" does it say this.

I read it on the interweb so it must be true. ;-)

Serioualy though the story pops up all over the place - I've no idea whether there is any substance to it. One possiblity is that it's a US thing and that British printers didn't have this problem for some reason.

Paul

Message #53 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Rob

Sak Wathanasin wrote:

Previously, Chris Ridd wrote:

I'm not really hung up about it. I can't see any compelling reason to put it before or after, though I'd try to be consistent about it. Perhaps "lack of consistency" is one of the rules ;-)

You could apply logic. If the remark being quoted is a complete sentence, the stop should go inside the quote marks, otherwise it goes outside.

Mmm, not sure.

I'd go: "This is a complete quoted sentence". This is another.

Otherwise you have: "This is a complete quoted sentence.". This is another.

I accept that my version doesn't fully reflect context, but life goes on.

Rob

Message #54 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Andrew Stephenson

Previously bas@llamaselector.com "Ben Shimmin" writes:

I think the standard quibble is as to whether `myriad' should be used as an adjective or as a noun. I am happy to use it either way.

e-COD9 seems to agree with you, declaring "n. & adj. literary". --
Andrew Stephenson

Message #55 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Andy Hewitt

T i m wrote:

And created in somebody elses back yard anyway ;-)

Yep, 20 miles away in Dagenham (and I think in those days Ford did actually make many of the parts themselves and on site).

Depends on the model, only the low end models were made here, the rest were made in Cologne, as well as other places around the world.

I've heard about such places but wasn't sure they really existed. I thought they were grown in huge flocks on large car parks and fields like I've seen on the telly?

LOL, only with things like Fiats, with the Hondas they have a greater demand than supply.

<weg>

True, mine has a fuel filter so you can add another £2.30 for the filter and whatever 10 mins costs in labour. ;-)

Not so easy nowadays though (let's forget about oldies for now, and look to the future), the modern ones are much more expensive, and because they are part of these new high pressure systems, they can't be fitted DIY either.

Ah, I don't like this 'future' you speak of then .. when a car can be 'written off' because of a 10p component failing in a £750 engine management computer .. ;-(

I never said I liked it either, just being realistic. Besides, on older cars not all of the pollution comes out of the tailpipe.

Aye, although how many diesel Boxsters are there?

42?

As far as I can see, none.

Well, if we say (guess) our off peak units are 5p and on peak ~15p [1] and we have used since the new digital meter was fitted (checks) 15,000 off peak and 14,000 on peak how much have we saved so far?

Well, you paid about £285 for those units, but could have paid £435 if you didn't have E7, so you saved about £150.

Isn't that £1500 Andy (15,000 x 10p)?

Erm yes, whoops.

However, the same number of
units on my single rate would have been £252.

Your average cost per unit is 9.8p, whereas I'm paying 8.71p.

Ah, but you can get that cheap 'Northern lekky now can't you? (who are you with though .. we are 'still' with whoever Eastern Electricity > Powergen > e-on is now). Not been 'rate tarts' as yet and we wanted to avoid the 'ag' that some have experienced with double billing or no power etc.

Actually I'm with Southern ;-)

Looking at using the correct decimal placing :-O, you would have saved £1825 on a single tariff.

Google does Webmail and SMTP/POP without any problems - go and check it out - even any mail you send using POP gets stored on the web server.

Ok ta. Is it free?

Yup, just like MSN or Yahoo, but IME it's been very reliable, and has an excellent spam filter too.

Ok thanks .. I will check it out.

The current storage limit is about 2873.023960MB - and it rises continuously.

Is that 'roughly' Andy?

That was exact at the time I copied and pasted it :-). But it increases all the time.

LOL

Al the best ..

Cheers

Message #56 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Andy Hewitt

Sak Wathanasin wrote:

Previously, Andy Hewitt wrote:

No he's correct, that is the true convention. However, it has become acceptable to put them outside things like brackets and speech marks as it does seem more 'readable' to most people (i.e. the thick general population).

The convention only applied if the parenthetical remark contained a whole sentence. (This would be an example of such a remark.)

I don't think it has ever applied to the lighter stops in the middle of a sentence. As Andrew wrote, if you remove the brackets (and everything inside them), the sentence should still stand. Carey (in "Mind The Stop") is fairly explicit on this point (page 70 in the edition that I have):

"No stops are, in fact, admissible inside brackets except such as properly belong to the actual words bracketed."

OK, I got it now, although I am losing the will to live!

Message #57 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Andrew Stephenson

Previously wildrover.andy@googlemail.com "Andy Hewitt" writes:

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

Know what, I don't really care :-P

Oh, I realised _that_. Most folks who write/say "comprises of" are beyond help, one step away from wanting to buy M$ products. I wasn't talking to you, so much as those who might be ready to learn. :-Y

Looking at that again, I see it reads more tartly that intended. One of those cases where acerbity is part of the joke.

FWIW, I am bothered about using good English where I can, and where my ability allows, although I will make the effort to look things up if they're really important.

However, when I'm writing informally, I don't bother worrying about grammar, especially when it isn't going to affect the understanding of the subject.

For professional reasons I always try writing as well as I can. Not that I never fail. And "writing well" often entails sloppy English as a deliberate act.

FWIW, I find it actually quite frustrating to be corrected about grammar, when it really doesn't matter and the general meaning is understood by anybody reading it.

All part of the service. :-) OTOH "comprise of" and its variants send me up the wall, maybe as much as they don't you. :-) So one person's non-event is another's headline news.

Perhaps we should start a new group - uk.advocacy.grammar maybe? ;-)

When we have agreed on placement of those full stops. And, hurm, that single-hyphen dash looks barely adequate...

Andrew Stephenson

Message #58 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Andrew Stephenson

Previously chrisridd@mac.com "Chris Ridd" writes:

On 2007-07-05 22:22:59 +0100, Andrew Stephenson said:

Oh, I realised _that_. Most folks who write/say "comprises of" are beyond help, one step away from wanting to buy M$ products.

Word's grammar checker doesn't object to the phrase "comprises of". QED :-)

M'lud, the Prosecution rests. :-)

A MINUTE LATER...

Dear Ghod, a foul and depressing revelation: my e-COD9 gives two examples of "comprise of", as if it were good usage. This is an appalling discovery. Like, I don't know, learning Bill Gates is a nice fellow who has always tried to encourage the underdog and support enterprises that rival his. Or that chocolate is really bad for you. Or "Neighbours" is a brilliant TV series. Or...

Ok, here's a book of apology coupons. Share them out among you. I am off, to live in a cave and dine on worms for forty days and nights. The horror. The horror.

Andrew Stephenson

Message #59 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Andrew Stephenson

Previously djmaizels@mac.com "Debbie Wilson" writes:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

My energy is RSPB, and is 100% renewable sources.

My dad once went to Trinidad as part of his work (chemical engineer), for a potential scheme to make power from chicken shit. Yours must be a posher version of that. Barn owls, maybe?

Stormy petrels? (BTW, your Dad could have stayed in the UK. In East Anglia there's at least one chicken shit power station.) --
Andrew Stephenson

Message #60 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Andy Hewitt

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Looking at that again, I see it reads more tartly that intended. One of those cases where acerbity is part of the joke.

<shrug>

FWIW, I am bothered about using good English where I can, and where my ability allows, although I will make the effort to look things up if they're really important.

However, when I'm writing informally, I don't bother worrying about grammar, especially when it isn't going to affect the understanding of the subject.

For professional reasons I always try writing as well as I can. Not that I never fail. And "writing well" often entails sloppy English as a deliberate act.

Indeed, as one site put it 'Grammar is not a science, it's an art', or something similar.

FWIW, I find it actually quite frustrating to be corrected about grammar, when it really doesn't matter and the general meaning is understood by anybody reading it.

All part of the service. :-) OTOH "comprise of" and its variants send me up the wall, maybe as much as they don't you. :-) So one person's non-event is another's headline news.

Indeed, although I can't say I've ever got *really* upset by misused words even in my own profession, or indeed, interests. Life's too short.

Perhaps we should start a new group - uk.advocacy.grammar maybe? ;-)

When we have agreed on placement of those full stops. And, hurm, that single-hyphen dash looks barely adequate...

FFS ;-)

Message #61 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Jaimie Vandenbergh

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:48:10 +0100, Rob wrote:

Sak Wathanasin wrote:

Previously, Chris Ridd wrote:

I'm not really hung up about it. I can't see any compelling reason to put it before or after, though I'd try to be consistent about it. Perhaps "lack of consistency" is one of the rules ;-)

You could apply logic. If the remark being quoted is a complete sentence, the stop should go inside the quote marks, otherwise it goes outside.

Mmm, not sure.

I'd go: "This is a complete quoted sentence". This is another.

Otherwise you have: "This is a complete quoted sentence.". This is another.

I'd be only mildly unhappy about that, but then I like my quoted strings to be complete inside the quotemarks, otherwise the CSV import routines get upset. Your first example feels incomplete, the second is a bit ugly.

Cheers - Jaimie

"How to Stop the System for Recovery Purposes"
- chapter heading, Sun Microsystems System Administration Guide

Message #62 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Chris Ridd

On 2007-07-06 16:46:10 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh said:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:48:10 +0100, Rob wrote:

Sak Wathanasin wrote:

Previously, Chris Ridd wrote:

I'm not really hung up about it. I can't see any compelling reason to put it before or after, though I'd try to be consistent about it. Perhaps "lack of consistency" is one of the rules ;-)

You could apply logic. If the remark being quoted is a complete sentence, the stop should go inside the quote marks, otherwise it goes outside.

Mmm, not sure.

I'd go: "This is a complete quoted sentence". This is another.

Otherwise you have: "This is a complete quoted sentence.". This is another.

I'd be only mildly unhappy about that, but then I like my quoted strings to be complete inside the quotemarks, otherwise the CSV import routines get upset. Your first example feels incomplete, the second is a bit ugly.

If you're doing CSV imports of prose... you've got other problems. ;-)

Cheers,

Chris

Message #63 - Posted 2007/07/06 - PeterD

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Perhaps we should start a new group - uk.advocacy.grammar maybe? ;-)

When we have agreed on placement of those full stops. And, hurm, that single-hyphen dash looks barely adequate...

Don't even *think* about using em-dashes in usenet. I find old books where long dashes are not buffered by spaces on either side most unpleasant on the eye—if you know what I mean.

Incidentally, how does that hideous long dash look in other newsreaders?

Pd

Message #64 - Posted 2007/07/06 - PeterD

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Dear Ghod, a foul and depressing revelation: my e-COD9 gives two examples of "comprise of", as if it were good usage. This is an appalling discovery.

This newsgroup can do that to you sometimes. I can't remember the occasion, which if I could would make this a much more interesting and amusing anecdote, but I had something very similar happen to me here.

And there was a recent incident involving what I considered to be an incorrect use of the word "hewn". I would've found e-COD9 useful then.

Pd

Message #65 - Posted 2007/07/06 - PeterD

Chris Ridd wrote:

On 2007-07-06 09:53:53 +0100, Debbie Wilson said:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

My energy is RSPB, and is 100% renewable sources.

My dad once went to Trinidad as part of his work (chemical engineer), for a potential scheme to make power from chicken shit. Yours must be a posher version of that. Barn owls, maybe?

Owls would be far too small.

The local "owl-man" in Watford, who should've known as he had quite a collection of owls including a big bugger with a six-foot wingspan, told me owls have no bum-hole. He said they regurgitate their waste.

I have since discovered that this is not true, they crap just like other birds, although they do often regurgitate indigestible bits like mouse bones.

Pd

Message #66 - Posted 2007/07/06 - Jim

On 2007-07-06, PeterD wrote:

Owls would be far too small.

The local "owl-man" in Watford, who should've known as he had quite a collection of owls including a big bugger with a six-foot wingspan, told me owls have no bum-hole. He said they regurgitate their waste.

I have since discovered that this is not true, they crap just like other birds, although they do often regurgitate indigestible bits like mouse bones.

And Volvos.

Jim

Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk "Inspiring bold John Barleycorn! What dangers thou canst make us scorn! Wi' tippenny, we fear nae evil; Wi' usquabae, we'll face the devil!" - Robert Burns, "Tam O'Shanter"

Message #67 - Posted 2007/07/07 - Rowland McDonnell

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Please: "comprises" OR "consists of" (occasionally "consists in" but that's for life's quietly pedantic moments), not... what you wrote. *shudder* Ta muchly. :-)

Know what, I don't really care :-P

Oh, I realised _that_. Most folks who write/say "comprises of" are beyond help, one step away from wanting to buy M$ products. I wasn't talking to you, so much as those who might be ready to learn. :-Y

FWIW, I am bothered about using good English where I can, and where my ability allows, although I will make the effort to look things up if they're really important.

However, when I'm writing informally, I don't bother worrying about grammar, especially when it isn't going to affect the understanding of the subject.

But causing pain to your readers by using abominable phrasing such as `conprises of' does affect understanding - it's hard to read something and fully appreciate it when the process of reading causes you to want to scream out loud and perhaps rip the head off the perpetrator with your bare hands.

FWIW, I find it actually quite frustrating to be corrected about grammar, when it really doesn't matter and the general meaning is understood by anybody reading it.

[snip]

For sure, but the point is that some bad grammar does cause problems. Sometimes it's because it's hard to untangle; other times, it's because it causes pain to the reader. And that's the sort of thing you ought to be interested in avoiding.

Rowland.

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Message #68 - Posted 2007/07/07 - Elliott Roper

Previously, PeterD wrote:

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Perhaps we should start a new group - uk.advocacy.grammar maybe? ;-)

When we have agreed on placement of those full stops. And, hurm, that single-hyphen dash looks barely adequate...

Don't even *think* about using em-dashes in usenet. I find old books where long dashes are not buffered by spaces on either side most unpleasant on the eyeãif you know what I mean.

Incidentally, how does that hideous long dash look in other newsreaders?

Perfectly hideous here in Thoth. How do you do that? Ahh. shift-opt-hyphen ã isn't keyboard viewer wonderful?

To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

Message #69 - Posted 2007/07/07 - Sak Wathanasin

Previously, Rob wrote:

Otherwise you have: "This is a complete quoted sentence.".

That's why you leave out the second "." - it just looks silly.

--

Sak Wathanasin
Network Analysis Limited
http://www.network-analysis.ltd.uk

Message #70 - Posted 2007/07/08 - Andrew Stephenson

Previously pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid "PeterD" writes:

Andrew Stephenson wrote:

Dear Ghod, a foul and depressing revelation: my e-COD9 gives two examples of "comprise of", as if it were good usage. This is an appalling discovery.

[...] I would've found e-COD9 useful then.

Peter, did you receive my email?

Andrew Stephenson

Message #71 - Posted 2007/07/09 - whisky-dave

"Andy Hewitt" <wildrover.andy@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:1i0sa18.ewoq8urs9kr3N%wildrover.andy@googlemail.com...

I've just completed two of my three tests on power consumption for my G5 system, and thought you lot might find it interesting.

I was using G5 2.0GHz iMac with external iSight and have noticed that even with the computer shut down the iSight stays warm to the touch, I also noticed previously
that even with a shutdown Mac it tend to use a bit of electricity 5-10W I'll try to measure it more accurately, but I think it's the filter systems 'leaking'
so a computer that has it's plugged removed from the wall socket will save even more money.

Need Help? Have a Question?

Looking for more help, comments, and answers?

Ask your questions on Ask Different. Ask Different is a community of Apple users ready to help.