Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #80030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-12-29 05:31 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-01-02 07:25 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 88 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-29 05:31 -0500
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-29 11:25 -0500
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2026-01-01 14:29 +1100
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-01 13:22 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-01 23:22 -0500
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-02 07:29 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 06:08 -0500
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:34 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 21:19 -0500
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 21:55 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-02 11:45 +0100
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 06:16 -0500
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2026-01-02 17:10 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 14:55 -0500
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-02 22:07 +0100
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-02 22:19 +0100
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:42 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 21:21 -0500
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2026-01-03 08:46 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-03 14:35 +0100
Re: Sun Position (was Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ?) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-03 22:00 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2026-01-01 14:50 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 02:22 -0500
DUC[KT] tape Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-02 14:48 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-01-02 14:56 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 10:21 -0500
Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:58 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2026-01-05 11:28 +1100
Re: DUC[KT] tape Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-01-06 13:32 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-01-07 02:14 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-06 22:42 -0500
Re: DUC[KT] tape Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-07 06:33 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-07 09:33 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-07 18:45 -0500
Re: DUC[KT] tape Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2026-01-09 12:13 +1100
Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-10 02:52 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-01-10 10:20 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-10 20:07 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-10 20:45 -0500
Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-11 06:02 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-11 01:30 -0500
Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-11 22:17 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2026-01-16 12:32 +1100
Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-11 12:04 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape vs Gaffer tape Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-07 14:40 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 10:16 -0500
Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:59 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:48 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 21:39 -0500
Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-03 08:42 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-03 07:09 -0500
Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-03 13:58 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 21:35 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-03 16:56 -0500
Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-03 23:01 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-03 23:38 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-03 19:51 -0500
Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-04 05:42 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-04 11:02 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-05 00:31 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-04 10:56 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape "Worst Case"@dizum.com - 2026-01-04 19:05 +0100
Re: DUC[KT] tape "Worst Case"@dizum.com - 2026-01-04 21:07 +0100
Re: DUC[KT] tape Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-03 23:41 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-03 20:31 -0500
Re: DUC[KT] tape Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-04 10:48 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-04 10:53 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-04 10:52 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-04 06:05 +0000
Re: DUC[KT] tape Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-03 14:26 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 19:21 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 02:56 -0500
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2026-01-03 00:50 +1100
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:21 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-05 12:44 +0100
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-01 21:48 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Rinaldi J. Montessi" <rinaldij@alien.free> - 2026-01-01 17:23 -0600
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 23:56 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-02 02:18 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 05:02 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-02 06:04 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 21:27 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-03 00:18 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 21:44 -0500
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-03 06:09 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-03 08:41 +0000
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-05 12:52 +0100
Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-02 07:25 +0000
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-11 01:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <Hbacnb7Tm5zz3v70nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #80885 |
On 1/11/26 01:02, rbowman wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 20:45:00 -0500, c186282 wrote: > >> "Rubber" came >> from TREES ... it wasn't until the war they came up with and used >> synthetic rubber in the mix because there wasn't enough of the >> natural stuff. > > https://sternrubber.com/blog/rubber-wizard-menlo-park/ > > The Ft. Meyers museum is worth a visit. From there it's a short drive to > Estero to bone up on the hollow earth theory. Well, Edison's stuff IS worth it ... "hollow earth" not so much. NOW we KNOW it can't be 'hollow' ... but 100 years ago they didn't. They imagined cool solid rock all the way down. It's what they SAW ... ergo it HAD to be the condition of the whole planet. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreshan_Unity > > The Waco whackjob wasn't the first Koresh. Oh, for sure. Religious/ideological wackos are RIFE all through our history and surely even before. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition !!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-11 22:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <msilrfF4217U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #80888 |
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 01:30:00 -0500, c186282 wrote: > Well, Edison's stuff IS worth it ... "hollow earth" > not so much. > > NOW we KNOW it can't be 'hollow' ... but 100 years ago they didn't. > They imagined cool solid rock all the way down. It's what they SAW > ... ergo it HAD to be the condition of the whole planet. Teed's hollow earth was a little different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth#Concave_Hollow_Earths
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-16 12:32 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <02ho3m-g92.ln1@otis.foo> |
| In reply to | #80947 |
Groovy hepcat rbowman was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Mon, 12 Jan
2026 09:17 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 01:30:00 -0500, c186282 wrote:
>
>> Well, Edison's stuff IS worth it ... "hollow earth"
>> not so much.
>>
>> NOW we KNOW it can't be 'hollow' ... but 100 years ago they
>> didn't. They imagined cool solid rock all the way down. It's what
>> they SAW ... ergo it HAD to be the condition of the whole planet.
>
> Teed's hollow earth was a little different.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth#Concave_Hollow_Earths
And let's not forget the flat Earth theory, which still exists in this
age of photos from space showing a blue ball of rock hanging in the
void. There's even a Flat Earth Society, which claimed on its web site
some years back that "The Flat Earth Society has members all over the
globe..." Yeah, the Earth is flat, like their heads!
--
----- Dig the NEW and IMPROVED news sig!! -----
-------------- Shaggy was here! ---------------
Ain't I'm a dawg!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-11 12:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <10k03jr$3qvn9$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80869 |
On 11/01/2026 01:45, c186282 wrote: > Most forget that flexible plastics were mostly > the product of the WW2 defense industry. For > example polyethylene was the godsend for > radar-frequency antenna cables. About the only > plastic anyone saw before the war was Bakelite, > but that's a rigid thermoset. "Rubber" came > from TREES ... it wasn't until the war they > came up with and used synthetic rubber in > the mix because there wasn't enough of the > natural stuff. > Yes. Prior to that there were organic plastics as it were (in the sense of plant derived) We had a set of encyclopedias dating from the 1920s in which 'gutta percha' featured as an insulator. Now used in dentistry. Ebonite was a rubber derivative that was essentially a thermosetting compound Perspex and acrylics were developed pre-WWII. Various wood saps were also used as glues in ancient times. Also hide glue and fish glue and glue from hooves...all very similar... Coal tar and wood tar products were used extensively. > Well, there was one other 'plastic' - nitrocellulose. > Was rumored to EXPLODE sometimes and there's a reason > for the term "film/projector VAULT". > Of course. cotton plus acid goes bang. > But hey ... the plastics industry had one immediate > civvie success - "nylons" 🙂 Yes, and rayon and acrylics etc etc. Flexible thermoplastics won't go away if we stop using coal or fossil fuels either. Although they may get more expensive. The quantities required can be synthesised from many 'renewable' feedstocks. -- “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” ― Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-07 14:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape vs Gaffer tape |
| Message-ID | <slrn10lss2f.3c7id.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> |
| In reply to | #80645 |
[Note Followups-To:] >>> Lars Poulsen wrote: >>>> My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape. >> Groovy hepcat Andy Burns was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Sat, 3 Jan >>> gaffer tape is different, designed to come off cleanly when used e.g. >>> for marking positions on stage > On 2026-01-05, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> wrote: >> No, gaffer tape is electrical tape. Gaffers are stage/movie/TV >> electricians. They rig up wiring for the lighting, etc. On 2026-01-07, Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote: > At least in the US since the latter 1970s for "gaffer tape" and > since the 1960s for "electrical tape", the two are drastically > different: > > - electrical tape is stretchable, about 3/4" wide, and it is used > for wrapping bare wires to prevent short circuiting > > - gaffer tape does not stretch substantially, is about 2" wide, > and is used for making sure (already-insulated) cables don't > move around on the floor, walls, etc. Subsequent posts have made it clear that "gaffer tape" may be any of: - duc[kt] tape - silver, very sticky, cloth tape - electrical tape - usually black or white, stretchable plastic - also very sticky - painter's masking tape - usually paper backed, removable with minimum residue. May be beige, yellow, blue or green - different brands with different properties. Since - as I understand it - a "gaffer" is a stagehand specializing in electrical wiring, I would expect that they would be prone to using electrical tape. My understanding (which may be faulty) is also that only movie sets have full-time work for a proper gaffer. On a movie set, there may be wiring belonging to different groups, so the wiring may be color coded to quickly recognize who owns what wiring, so you can dismantle it separately as the set is broken down. Work may be inside, or if outside, mostly in good weather, and installation is very temporary. So a desire for something that does not leave a mess. A music roadie mostly works outdoors, subject to weather. Also very temporary installations. Needs more stability than afforded by paper backed tape. Duct tapes leave sticky cables, but you live with it. Stage markings are semi permanent (weeks or months), may need color coding. Sticky residue is not desirable. No single kind of tape meets every objective. So masking tape or electrical tape each meet half the objectives. Are we all in alignment here? -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 10:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <Oeycnc1PLpf0fMr0nZ2dnZfqn_rV4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #80317 |
On 1/2/26 09:48, Lars Poulsen wrote: >> On 1/1/26 09:50, Mike Scott wrote: >>> https://www.ducktape.co.uk/ > > On 2026-01-02, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> Yep, originally "Duck" ... then later, likely >> for brand-name legal reasons, oft said "Duct". >> >> It IS good for 'ducts' too. > > My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape. > > My understanding is that it was developed for sealing ammunition > canisters in WW2, and the grunts called it duck tape. > > Forced air heating with ducts that needed sealing were not common until > later. Sounds correct. I think "DUCK tape" became a legal brand-name. Ergo other makers couldn't call their stuff "Duck". So far as I know it did come out during WW2 for military purposes. It was sometimes called "100 mph tape" also because they'd use it to patch bullet holes in aircraft. Have some cousins in Denmark ... but don't know what they call the stuff. HVAC systems ... you'd find them in COMMERCIAL buildings in the USA going FAR back, 1930s for sure. For HOME use, not so much until the mid 60s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 01:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <mrrbgfF6n51U9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #80321 |
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 10:16:41 -0500, c186282 wrote: > I think "DUCK tape" became a legal brand-name. Ergo other makers > couldn't call their stuff "Duck". In 1980.. A lot of ducts got taped before that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 01:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <mrraraF6n51U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #80317 |
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 14:48:43 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote: >> On 1/1/26 09:50, Mike Scott wrote: >>> https://www.ducktape.co.uk/ > > On 2026-01-02, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> Yep, originally "Duck" ... then later, likely for brand-name legal >> reasons, oft said "Duct". >> >> It IS good for 'ducts' too. > > My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape. > > My understanding is that it was developed for sealing ammunition > canisters in WW2, and the grunts called it duck tape. The grunts called it 100 mph tape. You could patch up your Jeep and it wouldn't blow off. Of course 100 mph was very optimistic for a Jeep but it sounds better than 65 mph tape. I suppose 100 kph tape would work but the US still isn't comfortable with kph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 21:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <r_6cnS1Bc8LsHMX0nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #80380 |
On 1/2/26 20:48, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 14:48:43 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote: > >>> On 1/1/26 09:50, Mike Scott wrote: >>>> https://www.ducktape.co.uk/ >> >> On 2026-01-02, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> Yep, originally "Duck" ... then later, likely for brand-name legal >>> reasons, oft said "Duct". >>> >>> It IS good for 'ducts' too. >> >> My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape. >> >> My understanding is that it was developed for sealing ammunition >> canisters in WW2, and the grunts called it duck tape. > > The grunts called it 100 mph tape. You could patch up your Jeep and it > wouldn't blow off. Of course 100 mph was very optimistic for a Jeep but > it sounds better than 65 mph tape. I suppose 100 kph tape would work but > the US still isn't comfortable with kph. Kilometers are TOO SHORT ! Meters are TOO LONG ! Centimeters are TOO SHORT, not to mention millimeters ! The English units are inconvenient, but they ARE much closer to what I'd call "human-scale" values. It's easy to hold yer fingers about an inch apart. A 'foot' is kind-of the size of a (largish) foot. A yard is about the size of a 'long stride'. Pints are just the right size for a Guinness. Expect USA to hold on to those imperial measures for a long long time ... save the metric for 'technical' junk. On the flip, the USA currency system IS far more clear than traditional British - 'decimal'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 08:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <10jakoq$13ji1$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80388 |
On 03/01/2026 02:39, c186282 wrote: > On the flip, the USA currency system IS far more > clear than traditional British - 'decimal'. The traditional British was not 'decimal' -- "When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics." Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 07:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <bJ6dnc_sX9N_m8T0nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #80404 |
On 1/3/26 03:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/01/2026 02:39, c186282 wrote: >> On the flip, the USA currency system IS far more >> clear than traditional British - 'decimal'. > > The traditional British was not 'decimal' Awkwardly-worded alas, trying to say the US system is 'decimal'. The old Brit system ... dunno WHAT the hell happened there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 13:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <10jb7aj$1936l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80410 |
On 03/01/2026 12:09, c186282 wrote: > On 1/3/26 03:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 03/01/2026 02:39, c186282 wrote: >>> On the flip, the USA currency system IS far more >>> clear than traditional British - 'decimal'. >> >> The traditional British was not 'decimal' > > Awkwardly-worded alas, trying to say the US system > is 'decimal'. > > The old Brit system ... dunno WHAT the hell happened there. > > It sorta grew....I think the old pound was a pound of silver or something. "It's called "pound sterling" because the "pound" originally referred to a pound weight of silver, and "sterling" denoted the high quality and purity of the silver coins (sterlings) used to make up that weight, with 240 pennies equaling one pound of silver. The name evolved from "a pound of sterlings" into the shorter "pound sterling," signifying a trusted currency backed by a specific weight of fine silver. " Shilling is I think a Dutch/germanic word. It just means a division As is IIRC dollar - or is that Spanish? The British crown and half crown were one quarter and one eighth of a pound. The halfpenny and farthing were on half and one quarter of a penny. The groat was four pence. The tanner was six pence. A florin was two shillings or a tenth of a pound (The name is linked to Florence, a city known for flourishing, and its famous 13th-century gold coin, the florin, which featured a lily symbol. ). twenty one shillings was a guinea. A sort of turbo charged pound. No more difficult than feet, yards, inches, miles, gallons and degrees Fahrenheit... -- "In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is true: it is true because it is powerful." Lucas Bergkamp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 21:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <mrtgdsFi6mnU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #80404 |
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 08:42:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/01/2026 02:39, c186282 wrote: >> On the flip, the USA currency system IS far more >> clear than traditional British - 'decimal'. > > The traditional British was not 'decimal' That's for sure. I never did figure out pence, shillings, quid, bob, pounds, and so forth, between the base system and the informal names. Somehow I wound up with a 5 pence piece that was masquerading as a US dime. It's not uncommon to get Canadian coins but I've not idea how that one got introduced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 16:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <JKmdneOUIq40DcT0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #80434 |
On 1/3/26 16:35, rbowman wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 08:42:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 03/01/2026 02:39, c186282 wrote: >>> On the flip, the USA currency system IS far more >>> clear than traditional British - 'decimal'. >> >> The traditional British was not 'decimal' > > That's for sure. I never did figure out pence, shillings, quid, bob, > pounds, and so forth, between the base system and the informal names. > Somehow I wound up with a 5 pence piece that was masquerading as a US > dime. It's not uncommon to get Canadian coins but I've not idea how that > one got introduced. Well ... England ranks as one of those "most invaded" countries. There was the apparent OP and then the Beaker People came ... Romans ... finally Anglos, Saxons, Normans and now Arabs. Everybody brought in their own little systems for money and measure. For a time England had a global empire too, and ideas from all those colonies infiltrated as well. The language is a serious pidgin, a mix of most everything in the world. So yea, expect "confused" :-) Somebody said "dollar" ... I think that term came from Syria. NOT sure why the US founders picked it up. Given alliances, I'd have expected them to pick up 'francs' instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 23:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <10jc757$1jj7a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80436 |
On 03/01/2026 21:56, c186282 wrote: > Somebody said "dollar" ... I think that term came > from Syria. NOT sure why the US founders picked > it up. Given alliances, I'd have expected them to > pick up 'francs' instead. I said it and it's Germanic "from early Flemish or Low German daler, from German T(h)aler, short for Joachimsthaler, a coin from the silver mine of Joachimsthal (‘Joachim's valley’), now Jáchymov in the Czech Republic. The term was later applied to a coin used in the Spanish American colonies, which was also widely used in the British North American colonies at the time of the American War of Independence, hence adopted as the name of the US monetary unit in the late 18th century." -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 23:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <slrn10lja2q.22e1c.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> |
| In reply to | #80436 |
>> >>> On 03/01/2026 02:39, c186282 wrote: >>>> On the flip, the USA currency system IS far more >>>> clear than traditional British - 'decimal'. >> On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 08:42:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> The traditional British was not 'decimal' > On 1/3/26 16:35, rbowman wrote: >> That's for sure. I never did figure out pence, shillings, quid, bob, >> pounds, and so forth, between the base system and the informal names. >> Somehow I wound up with a 5 pence piece that was masquerading as a US >> dime. It's not uncommon to get Canadian coins but I've not idea how that >> one got introduced. On 2026-01-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > Well ... England ranks as one of those "most invaded" > countries. There was the apparent OP and then the > Beaker People came ... Romans ... finally Anglos, Saxons, > Normans and now Arabs. Everybody brought in their own > little systems for money and measure. For a time England > had a global empire too, and ideas from all those > colonies infiltrated as well. The language is a serious > pidgin, a mix of most everything in the world. > > So yea, expect "confused" :-) > > Somebody said "dollar" ... I think that term came > from Syria. NOT sure why the US founders picked > it up. Given alliances, I'd have expected them to > pick up 'francs' instead. 25 years ago, I assembled some notes on weird British things. Now found at http://www.beagle-ears.com/lars/pages/showpage.cgi?humor_measures.page As for the dollar: There was a fairly standard gold coin, issued by several countries. I think it was called a dubloon. It was a bit too large for everyday use, so people hacked it up into wedges 1/8 the size, referred to as "pieces of eight" or individually as "bits". One of these was the German "Joachimsthaler" - a coin minted in Joachimsthal (wherever in Germany that may be) and "thaler" smoothed down to becomme "dollar". So 25 cents = 1/4 dollar = two bits. "Haircut and shave is - two bits!!" -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 19:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <JKmdnR6UIq4CJMT0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #80443 |
On 1/3/26 18:38, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>> >>>> On 03/01/2026 02:39, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On the flip, the USA currency system IS far more >>>>> clear than traditional British - 'decimal'. > >>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 08:42:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> The traditional British was not 'decimal' > >> On 1/3/26 16:35, rbowman wrote: >>> That's for sure. I never did figure out pence, shillings, quid, bob, >>> pounds, and so forth, between the base system and the informal names. >>> Somehow I wound up with a 5 pence piece that was masquerading as a US >>> dime. It's not uncommon to get Canadian coins but I've not idea how that >>> one got introduced. > > On 2026-01-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> Well ... England ranks as one of those "most invaded" >> countries. There was the apparent OP and then the >> Beaker People came ... Romans ... finally Anglos, Saxons, >> Normans and now Arabs. Everybody brought in their own >> little systems for money and measure. For a time England >> had a global empire too, and ideas from all those >> colonies infiltrated as well. The language is a serious >> pidgin, a mix of most everything in the world. >> >> So yea, expect "confused" :-) >> >> Somebody said "dollar" ... I think that term came >> from Syria. NOT sure why the US founders picked >> it up. Given alliances, I'd have expected them to >> pick up 'francs' instead. > > 25 years ago, I assembled some notes on weird British things. > Now found at > http://www.beagle-ears.com/lars/pages/showpage.cgi?humor_measures.page > > As for the dollar: There was a fairly standard gold coin, issued by > several countries. I think it was called a dubloon. It was a bit too > large for everyday use, so people hacked it up into wedges 1/8 the > size, referred to as "pieces of eight" or individually as "bits". > > One of these was the German "Joachimsthaler" - a coin minted in > Joachimsthal (wherever in Germany that may be) and "thaler" smoothed > down to becomme "dollar". So 25 cents = 1/4 dollar = two bits. > "Haircut and shave is - two bits!!" Someone else suggested 'Germanic' ... but that may just be a random association based on 'how it sounds'. Besides, the US founders did not LIKE the Germans - they were mercenaries for the Redcoats, and pretty nasty too. Dunno, "doll-ARh" sounds Arabic to me ... and Euros had long experience with those cultures by the 1700s. I'll poke around and see if there's a sounds-alike going back further than Germany, crusader times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 05:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <mructjFm7clU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #80445 |
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 19:51:44 -0500, c186282 wrote: > Someone else suggested 'Germanic' ... but that may just be a random > association based on 'how it sounds'. Besides, the US founders did > not LIKE the Germans - they were mercenaries for the Redcoats, and > pretty nasty too. The first German language newspaper in the colonies was published by Ben Franklin. 'Germany' didn't exist until the 19th century. 'Dutch' was the blanket term, as in Pennsylvania Dutch or the entire colony of New Netherland so there were plenty of what would now be called Germans before the Hessian mercenaries. They had no reason to love the Brits. They weren't so much loyalists as thinking along the lines of the Gibson character in 'The Patriot'. Is it better to have one tyrant a thousand miles away or a thousand tyrants one mile away? Franklin's paper failed which did set the old pervert against Germans.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 11:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <10jdhbh$1u3ls$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80451 |
On 04/01/2026 05:42, rbowman wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 19:51:44 -0500, c186282 wrote: > >> Someone else suggested 'Germanic' ... but that may just be a random >> association based on 'how it sounds'. Besides, the US founders did >> not LIKE the Germans - they were mercenaries for the Redcoats, and >> pretty nasty too. > > The first German language newspaper in the colonies was published by Ben > Franklin. > In anthropology 'Germanic' refers to a broad group of peoples who inhabited NW Europe at or about the time of the late Bronze age onwards So Czechs, Dutch, Denmarks ,Swedes, swiss, flemish, Austrian as well as the English and Germans are all 'germanic'. It was the Romans, who encountered the Germanii, who coined the term to refer largely to 'anyone who doesn't speak Latin' -- It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 00:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <ms0f39F2l85U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #80460 |
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 11:02:09 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 04/01/2026 05:42, rbowman wrote: >> On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 19:51:44 -0500, c186282 wrote: >> >>> Someone else suggested 'Germanic' ... but that may just be a >>> random association based on 'how it sounds'. Besides, the US >>> founders did not LIKE the Germans - they were mercenaries for the >>> Redcoats, and pretty nasty too. >> >> The first German language newspaper in the colonies was published by >> Ben Franklin. >> > In anthropology 'Germanic' refers to a broad group of peoples who > inhabited NW Europe at or about the time of the late Bronze age onwards > > So Czechs, Dutch, Denmarks ,Swedes, swiss, flemish, Austrian as well as > the English and Germans are all 'germanic'. > > It was the Romans, who encountered the Germanii, who coined the term to > refer largely to 'anyone who doesn't speak Latin' Varus, give me back my legions!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web