We usually agree John, but this part is not so stupid at all.

Since AOL dropped its Usenet service, all of the idiots seem to have migrated
to Google Groups. Far worse, Google insists on accomidating spammers.
Sometimes I think that Google is trying to kill the Usenet because it has no way
of reliably collecting ad revenue from it. Since Google Mail does such a good
job of blocking spam, there is no doubt that Google could do the same to Groups
if it served their corporate plan. Since the Google spam seems to come in
waves, I may or may not have Google blocked on any given week.

The Google idiots I can put up with, but spammers are the lowest form of
sub-human life.

Vaughn

Posted by Eeyore on July 7, 2008, 8:35 am

Please log in for more thread options

Vaughn Simon wrote:

> Since AOL dropped its Usenet service, all of the idiots seem to have migrated

> to Google Groups.

You still get the occasional WebTV one, and my, are they crackers !

Graham

Posted by on July 7, 2008, 2:05 pm

Please log in for more thread options

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:59:57 GMT Vaughn Simon

| Since AOL dropped its Usenet service, all of the idiots seem to have migrated
| to Google Groups. Far worse, Google insists on accomidating spammers.
| Sometimes I think that Google is trying to kill the Usenet because it has no
way
| of reliably collecting ad revenue from it. Since Google Mail does such a good
| job of blocking spam, there is no doubt that Google could do the same to
Groups
| if it served their corporate plan. Since the Google spam seems to come in
| waves, I may or may not have Google blocked on any given week.

The problem is more a case of Google using their anti-spam capability only on
incoming mail. They don't even use it on their outgoing EMAIL! My email spam
has reached a point where nearly 30% comes from a Google server. Of the spam
received just today in my mailbox (I haven't even checked the spamtraps, yet)
exactly half (4 out of 8) came from a Google server.

If Google were to apply their extensive anti-spam capability to all their
outgoing EMAIL and USENET postings, this problem would insignificant. My
gmail address doesn't get spammed like that (but just in case, you can
figure it out via my ham radio callsign if you wish).

| The Google idiots I can put up with, but spammers are the lowest form of
| sub-human life.

I agree. And there are even a few decent smart people who have chosen to use
the Google Groups web interface to submit mail, too. I tried it myself a few
times and found it semi-usable. I find the reading to be a bit harder there.
I should go back and look again to see if the Usenet spam we get is also seen
there (since I last looked well before the spam outbreak at Google).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Posted by Cydrome Leader on July 7, 2008, 11:13 am

Please log in for more thread options

> On 6 Jul 2008 22:51:26 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

>>It is quite normal for UL tests to test for voltages at least double that for

>>which the device insulation is to be rated, and perhaps well more than that.

> <snippity>

>>UL testing procedure documents

>>are available, but have a high cost, so I have not purchased them. If you

>>really want to know for sure, you will have to part with some coin to see.

> So you know what is "quite normal for UL tests to test" and yet you've never

> actually seen a UL test procedure. Hmmmm. This is the perfect example of one

> of the more remarkable phenomena on the net - someone writing a wordy article

> on a topic about which he has absolutely no knowledge. In any other

> environment, most folks would simply keep the lip zipped, listen and learn.

> Here's a suggestion, Phil. Look up what "Basic Impulse Load" (BIL) testing

> consists of. That'll give you an inkling of just how silly your writing

> really is. You don't have to buy a UL document to learn all about BIL

> testing. You can simply go to an instrument company's website like Biddle and

> download a BIL tester's manual. While you're at it, learn about "Hi-Pot"

> testing. The same companies that make BIL testers tend to also make Hi-Pot

> testers so that shouldn't be too challenging for you to learn about both.

>>I'm far less worried about double voltage jumping across an open breaker

>>contact than I am about the idiots that might close the breaker when the

>>utility linemen are working on the wires.

> Damn, did someone just turn on the WayBack machine? I thought we pretty much

> beat this topic to death just last week.

>>The scenario of double voltage

>>across an open breaker should not be allowed to be possible, regardless of

>>whether the breaker can withstand it or not.

> Really? Quite a few authorities such as UL and the NEC tend to disagree with

> you. Consider this fully approved gadget

> http://www.interlockkit.com/intro2.htm

Interesting device. The closest I've seen to that was a set of locks that
threw bolts in front of breakers you should not operate. To make sure you
could not operate two breakers in conflicting states, the key would stay
captive in each lock depending on whether or not the bolt it threw was or
wasn't blocking the circuit breaker paddle.

It may sound complex, but it was just a bunch of panel mount deadbolts
attached to the face of the breaker panel, far far cheaper than some weird
rotary switch.

Posted by hubops on July 7, 2008, 5:09 pm

Please log in for more thread options

>> http://www.interlockkit.com/intro2.htm

>Interesting device. The closest I've seen to that was a set of locks that

>threw bolts in front of breakers you should not operate. To make sure you

>could not operate two breakers in conflicting states, the key would stay

>captive in each lock depending on whether or not the bolt it threw was or

>wasn't blocking the circuit breaker paddle.

>It may sound complex, but it was just a bunch of panel mount deadbolts

>attached to the face of the breaker panel, far far cheaper than some weird

>rotary switch.

I recently saw a keyed-interlock - in a new industrial setting -
where you could remove the key - without the switch being
turned OFF ... a little extra pressure in turning the key
resulted in the "bowing" of the interlock mounting steel
( maybe 1/16 inch ) but it was enough to complete
the key rotation to the point where the key came out.
.. the panels are now replaced.

Similar Threads	Posted
Solar power eliminates utility bills	January 17, 2007, 11:23 am
Plug Power Announces Agreement to Acquire Cellex Power	March 16, 2007, 5:58 am
Plug Power Announces Completion of Cellex Power Acquisition	April 4, 2007, 7:35 am
Main Panel Interlocks	August 19, 2007, 7:16 pm
We truly do have the power	February 6, 2008, 4:15 pm
Hi and Pedal Power	January 10, 2007, 4:10 pm
Power from water?	February 16, 2007, 12:41 am
power from the vacuum	March 9, 2008, 1:05 pm
solar power	April 21, 2008, 2:19 pm
Make your own Power!	July 10, 2008, 9:29 am

XML Sitemap