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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 10:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <10jdh1m$1u3ls$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80445 |
On 04/01/2026 00:51, c186282 wrote: > Dunno, "doll-ARh" sounds Arabic to me ... and Euros > had long experience with those cultures by the > 1700s. > It's not a question of how it sounds to you. It is a matter of fact. > I'll poke around and see if there's a sounds-alike > going back further than Germany, crusader times. No, there isn't. It's a corruption of ' Thaler', itself an abbreviation of Joachimsthaler -- I would rather have questions that cannot be answered... ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned Richard Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Worst Case"@dizum.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 19:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <c1c4089c8768b62bb1b723ac09745c83@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #80443 |
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 23:38:02 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote: > 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". Ackshually, pieces of eight were *pesos de ocho*, the Spanish silver dollars, which weighed eight *reales* — nearly eight troy ounces. It was the first international currency. The American silver dollar was almost the same weight and was intended to circulate "on par" with the *peso*. When the Santa Fe Trail was opened, about 30% of the silver dollars in circulation in the United States were in fact *pesos*. + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_dollar -- Moreover I'm convinced that Reddit must be destroyed. Worst Case
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Worst Case"@dizum.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 21:07 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <a9d95ab32e7d69f530a08c133ef8d555@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #80443 |
Er ... that would be one-ounce American silver dollars. -- Moreover I'm convinced that Reddit must be destroyed. Worst Case
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 23:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <wwvcy3qw9fd.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #80436 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: > On 1/3/26 16:35, rbowman wrote: >> 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. You missed out the Celts, Vikings and the Dutch, not to mention less consequential invasions by the French, Scots and Spanish. As for the Arab expansion it never even reached the channel (Odo of Aquitaine turned them back in the C8th) and I can reassure you that there is no Arab invasion at present. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 20:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <JKmdnRmUIq5uX8T0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #80444 |
On 1/3/26 18:41, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: >> On 1/3/26 16:35, rbowman wrote: >>> 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. > > You missed out the Celts, Vikings and the Dutch, not to mention less > consequential invasions by the French, Scots and Spanish. As for the > Arab expansion it never even reached the channel (Odo of Aquitaine > turned them back in the C8th) and I can reassure you that there is no > Arab invasion at present. There were so many invasions I abbreviated the list :-) Oh, "Normans" WERE the Vikings, later more specifically referred to the Nordics who had settled in France. And the Arabs are Right NOW ... Anyway, no WONDER the Brits are all mad ... what a bizarre history ! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 10:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <wwva4yt1wne.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #80447 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: > On 1/3/26 18:41, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: >>> On 1/3/26 16:35, rbowman wrote: >>>> 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. >> You missed out the Celts, Vikings and the Dutch, not to mention less >> consequential invasions by the French, Scots and Spanish. As for the >> Arab expansion it never even reached the channel (Odo of Aquitaine >> turned them back in the C8th) and I can reassure you that there is no >> Arab invasion at present. > > There were so many invasions I abbreviated the list :-) > > Oh, "Normans" WERE the Vikings, later more specifically > referred to the Nordics who had settled in France. Descended from Vikings for sure, but sufficiently intergated into the French world of the time that they’re best seen as distinct. > And the Arabs are Right NOW ... No, you’ve made that up, or more likely made the mistake of listening to someone else who’s made it up. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 10:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <10jdgs7$1u3ls$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80456 |
On 04/01/2026 10:48, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: >> On 1/3/26 18:41, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: >>>> On 1/3/26 16:35, rbowman wrote: >>>>> 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. >>> You missed out the Celts, Vikings and the Dutch, not to mention less >>> consequential invasions by the French, Scots and Spanish. As for the >>> Arab expansion it never even reached the channel (Odo of Aquitaine >>> turned them back in the C8th) and I can reassure you that there is no >>> Arab invasion at present. >> >> There were so many invasions I abbreviated the list :-) >> >> Oh, "Normans" WERE the Vikings, later more specifically >> referred to the Nordics who had settled in France. > > Descended from Vikings for sure, but sufficiently intergated into the > French world of the time that they’re best seen as distinct. > >> And the Arabs are Right NOW ... > > No, you’ve made that up, or more likely made the mistake of listening to > someone else who’s made it up. > Indeed. The main invasions are afghanistan,. Pakistan and sub saharan africa. The arabs all go to France -- I would rather have questions that cannot be answered... ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned Richard Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 10:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <10jdgoo$1u3ls$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80444 |
On 03/01/2026 23:41, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: >> On 1/3/26 16:35, rbowman wrote: >>> 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. > > You missed out the Celts, Vikings and the Dutch, not to mention less > consequential invasions by the French, Scots and Spanish. As for the > Arab expansion it never even reached the channel (Odo of Aquitaine > turned them back in the C8th) and I can reassure you that there is no > Arab invasion at present. > Out here about 60% of the land is arab owned... -- I would rather have questions that cannot be answered... ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned Richard Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 06:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <mruea5Fmr62U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #80436 |
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 16:56:58 -0500, 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaler https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/why-do-we-call-it-a-dollar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 14:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DUC[KT] tape |
| Message-ID | <slrn10li9pf.gf5b.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> |
| In reply to | #80388 |
On 2026-01-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> 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'.
Many years ago (over 25 years ago), I collected these:
* * *
** British Measures **
Recent discussions on alt.folklore.computers have reminded me just how
funny and confusing the traditional English measures can be. Some of
them still live on in the USA, while the English themselves are now
safely ashore in the metric system.
*Ounces, Pounds and Pints*
(www.sciencemadesimple.com/conversions.html - a serious tool)
In current American usage, 8 ounces make a cup, 2 cups make a pint, two
pints make a quart, 4 quarts make a gallon. A pint of water weighs a
pound.
But in the British empire, it took 20 (fluid) ounces to make an imperial
pint, making the Imperial gallon 25% bigger than the American gallon.
Thus, we have the common American claim that "a pint is a pound the
world around" pitted against the English statement that "a pint of water
weighs a pound and a quarter".
But in England, it got a lot worse, because there were two different
ounces! Precious metals and apothecary goods were sold in troy (or
apothecary) ounces of 480 grains each, while everything else was traded
in avoirdupois ounces of 437.5 grains each. Thus, the comforting fact
that an ounce of gold (31.1 grams) weighs more than an ounce of feathers
(28.35 grams). On the other hand, the troy pound has only 12 ounces,
while the avoirdupois pound has 16 ounces, so a pound of gold (373
grams) weighs LESS than a pound of feathers (454 grams).
Larger measures: A hogshead (238 liters) is 7 firkins (US) or just under
6 firkins (British) and I have heard it said that this is also half a
pipe, but I have not found a written reference to the measure of a pipe.
A barrel (British) appears to be anywhere from 31 gallons to 42 gallons,
although the most common definition seems to be 36 gallons (164 liters).
An American barrel of dry measure is 105 dry quarts (116 liters), but a
liquid barrel is 31.5 gallons (liquid) or 119 liters, unless the barrel
contains petroleum, in which case it contains 42 (US) gallons or 159
liters.
The three different ounces:
- a fluid ounce is 29.573 ml
- a troy ounce is 31.1 g
- an ounce avoirdupois is 28.35 g
There's also something called "dry measure" with units of pint, quart,
peck and bushel for measuring quantities of fruits, grains, and whatnot.
1 pint dry is 0.551 l, while 1 pint liquid is 0.473 l.
*Inches, Rods, Chains and Furlongs*
An inch is the outer part of a man's thumb, 25.4 millimeter to be exact.
12 inches to a foot, two feet to a cubit or three feet to a yard.
A rod/pole is 5.5 yards (16.5 feet): The size of a big stick carried
around by builders (hence the name).
Four rods make a chain (22 yards) - the distance between two (cricket)
wickets. Ten chains make a furlong. A furlong square is ten acres. Eight
furlongs make a mile.
A perch was originaly a big stick, but later became a volume. A perch
was a pile of stone one rod long by one foot wide by one cubit high).
*Temperatures in Fahrenheit*
People raised with Celsius temperatures find the Fahrenheit temperature
scale equally bizarre, and wonder how it came to be that water freezes
at 32 degrees Fahrentheit and boils at 212 degrees F; two oddball
numbers. A correspondent to alt.folklore computer describes it as
follows:
Fahrenheit's claim to fame was that he had a (proprietary) technique for
making glass tubes with a constant inner bore. Thermometers that he made
with that technique were exceptionally accurate. They still had to be
calibrated, of course (it's deucedly hard to get exactly the right
amount of liquid in the bulb), but once two marks were placed on the
completed thermometer it was straightforward to interpolate other marks
linearly in between, confident that because of the constant bore such
marks would match the corresponding linearly interpolated temperatures.
Notice that both the position and spacing of the marks would vary from
one thermometer to the next. It was tricky enough making each tube have
a constant bore along its length. Making all the tubes coming out of the
same factory have the same constant bore was too much to hope for. In
any event the distance between marks still depends on the ratio of the
volume of the bulb to the area of the bore, and he wasn't able to make
that ratio so uniform.
It helps if the two reference temperatures differ by a power of two,
because then interpolating the other marks is as simple as repeatedly
halving the interval. He chose as his reference temperatures the
temperature of melting ice and the temperature of his dog's rectum.
(Poor mutt.) He assigned those temperatures the numbers 32 and 96, which
differ by 64 degrees.
He started at 32 rather than 0 to better handle subfreezing
temperatures. 32, also a power of two, simplified the task of adding the
subfreezing temperature marks, and was enough to shift the range so
that, as a fortuitous consequence, 0 would be "about as cold as it gets"
and 100 would be "about as hot as it gets". "About", in both cases. 0
and 100 were not the reference temperatures; 32 and 96 were. He was
thinking binary, not decimal.
-Ron Hunsinger - hnsngr@sirius.com
*Guineas, Pounds, Shillings, Pence and Farthings*
Prior to the currency reform around 1970, there were 12 pennies to the
shilling, and 20 shillings to the pound, making 240 pennies to the
pound. The halfpenny was also legal tender, and prior to about 1957
there was also a coin called a farthing, which was equal to a quarter of
a penny.
The pound was abbreviated "L" for "Libra" (latin for a pound of silver).
The shilling was abbreviated "s" for "solidus", and the penny was
abbreviated "d" for "denarius".
After the reform, there were 100 (new) pence to a pound, but visitors
were quite confused, because the old coins remained legal tender. For
example, the old sixpence coin was now 2 1/2 (new) pence; to avoid
confusion, the new pence were abbreviated "p" (for "pence"). As old
coins wore out, new coins were minted in the same shape but imprinted
with the decimal value.
How could a system as complicated as the 1/20/12 ratios have developed ?
One source claims that the three units originally were unrelated.
There was a unit of currency called the shilling. It was used by big
business and worth quite a bit (about a month's wages). Its value went
up and down as the medium of exchange -- a month's work -- became rare or
plentiful -- high employment or low employment.
There was another unit of currency called the penny. It was the general
medium of exchange for a bulk item (baker's dozen of loaves, a month's
rent, travel from Oxford to London). It was divided into quarters so you
could buy a single loaf or a jug of milk.
Another unit was used by huge business: the banks, shipbuilders, those
who dealt in metals or in entire shiploads of goods. It was equivalent
to the cost of a pound of silver.
There were also groats and sovereigns. I'm not sure about them.
These all existed independently. If you were the kind of person who
dealt in pounds, there was never any need for you to encounter a penny.
If you paid rent of a shilling a month for your house, you could never
thing of seeing a whole pound. The different units of currency had
constantly-shifting exchange rates depending on demand-and-suppply. If
three trading ships came in at the same month all laden with goods, the
value of the pound would go up with respect to the shilling and penny.
Eventually there was so much interplay between the different currencies
that it became necessary to fix the exchange rates to stop a rich man
keeping all his wealth in pennies because he thought that the pound was
going to go down. At about that time, a pound was worth about twenty
shillings and a shilling was worth about twelve pennies, so that's how
they fixed it.
The disparate systems did not bother ordinary people. No need to know
what a shilling was until you were old enough to pay rent. No need to
know what a pound was unless you were a clerk, in which case you were
trained. More recently (i.e. when I went to school) it was a standard
part of early schooling.
I really don't believe any of this, but it is an interesting theory.
Back to the facts. Certain items were traditionally billed in Guineas. A
guinea is one pound and a shilling. I have heard it claimed that this
originated in real estate transactions, where the pound went to the
seller, while the shilling was the lawyer's commission for doing the
paperwork.
*Summary of English Money*
- two farthings made a halfpenny (ha'penny)
- two halfpennies made a penny
- three pennies made a thrupenny bit
- a thrupenny bit and a penny made a groat
- two thrupenny bits made a tanner
- two tanners made a bob
- two bob made a florin (a.k.a. a two bob bit)
- two bob and a tanner made half a crown (a.k.a. half a dollar)
- two half dollars made a crown
- two crown made a ten bob note
- two ten bob notes made a quid
- twentyone bob made a guinea
- and those guys thought that "decimal money would be too complicated
for ordinary people" to switch to ...
*The Metric Reform*
Around 1963, the Bristish government pushed through a general conversion
to the metric system. personally remember a set of posters published by
the Construction Industry Training Board, which I ordered through the
mail after hearing them advertized on Radio Luxembourg. English born
colleagues remember ditties they learned in school, such as "a litre of
water's a pint and three quarters" or "two and a quarter pounds of jam
weighs about a kilogram".
--
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-01 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10j6hfe$3mtri$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80229 |
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:29:21 +1100, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote: > Groovy hepcat c186282 was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Tue, 30 > Dec 2025 03:25 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it. > >> Had some non-stick film, and duck tape. > > Forgive the spelling correction here; but unless it quacks and > waddles, that's duct tape. :) <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duck> Etymology 3, as in the material the tape was made from. It is “duct” that is the misspelling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 02:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QfecnapTtImO58r0nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #80243 |
On 1/1/26 14:21, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:29:21 +1100, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote: > >> Groovy hepcat c186282 was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Tue, 30 >> Dec 2025 03:25 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it. >> >>> Had some non-stick film, and duck tape. >> >> Forgive the spelling correction here; but unless it quacks and >> waddles, that's duct tape. :) > > <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duck> Etymology 3, as in the material > the tape was made from. > > It is “duct” that is the misspelling. "Duck" was a legal brand-name. Competitors had to come up with a variant. "Duck" tape was invented back during WW2 ... a 'water-proof' super-sticky tape good for a variety of military needs. "Duck" or "Duct" ... STILL one of the most useful things in the world :-) If you're into tape, DO check out "Alien Tape" and variants. Based on "Gecko Toe" equivs ... a zillion hyper-fine fibers that stick to things via inherent micro molecular static forces. You TWIST it a little to get it loose, CAN wash it and re-use, it's not an 'adhesive' per-se, not a 'glue'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 00:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <f1vk2m-cl1.ln1@otis.foo> |
| In reply to | #80289 |
Groovy hepcat c186282 was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Fri, 2 Jan
2026 06:56 pm. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
> On 1/1/26 14:21, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:29:21 +1100, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote:
>>
>>> Groovy hepcat c186282 was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Tue, 30
>>> Dec 2025 03:25 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
>>>
>>>> Had some non-stick film, and duck tape.
>>>
>>> Forgive the spelling correction here; but unless it quacks and
>>> waddles, that's duct tape. :)
>>
>> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duck> Etymology 3, as in the material
>> the tape was made from.
>>
>> It is “duct” that is the misspelling.
>
> "Duck" was a legal brand-name. Competitors
> had to come up with a variant.
>
> "Duck" tape was invented back during WW2 ...
> a 'water-proof' super-sticky tape good for a
> variety of military needs.
>
> "Duck" or "Duct" ... STILL one of the most
> useful things in the world :-)
Ah! I wasn't aware of the derivation of the name. Thanks for the
education, everyone! :)
> If you're into tape, DO check out "Alien Tape"
> and variants. Based on "Gecko Toe" equivs ...
> a zillion hyper-fine fibers that stick to
> things via inherent micro molecular static
> forces. You TWIST it a little to get it
> loose, CAN wash it and re-use, it's not
> an 'adhesive' per-se, not a 'glue'.
Also interesting.
--
----- Dig the NEW and IMPROVED news sig!! -----
-------------- Shaggy was here! ---------------
Ain't I'm a dawg!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 01:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrr99cF6n51U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #80289 |
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 02:56:03 -0500, c186282 wrote: > "Duck" was a legal brand-name. Competitors had to come up with a > variant. https://www.duckbrand.com/about 'Duck' is a trademark but came well afterwards. Even 'duct' was a postwar use of the WWII creation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 12:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nqks2mx4ft.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #80289 |
On 2026-01-02 08:56, c186282 wrote: > On 1/1/26 14:21, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:29:21 +1100, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote: >> >>> Groovy hepcat c186282 was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Tue, 30 >>> Dec 2025 03:25 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it. >>> >>>> Had some non-stick film, and duck tape. >>> >>> Forgive the spelling correction here; but unless it quacks and >>> waddles, that's duct tape. :) >> >> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duck> Etymology 3, as in the material >> the tape was made from. >> >> It is “duct” that is the misspelling. > > "Duck" was a legal brand-name. Competitors > had to come up with a variant. > > "Duck" tape was invented back during WW2 ... > a 'water-proof' super-sticky tape good for a > variety of military needs. > > "Duck" or "Duct" ... STILL one of the most > useful things in the world :-) Known here as "cinta americana", ie, american tape. > > If you're into tape, DO check out "Alien Tape" > and variants. Based on "Gecko Toe" equivs ... > a zillion hyper-fine fibers that stick to > things via inherent micro molecular static > forces. You TWIST it a little to get it > loose, CAN wash it and re-use, it's not > an 'adhesive' per-se, not a 'glue'. > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-01 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mro8csFlga3U11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #80229 |
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:29:21 +1100, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote: > Groovy hepcat c186282 was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Tue, 30 Dec > 2025 03:25 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it. > >> Had some non-stick film, and duck tape. SEEMS > > Forgive the spelling correction here; but unless it quacks and > waddles, that's duct tape. :) 100 mph tape. No ducts or ducks involved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rinaldi J. Montessi" <rinaldij@alien.free> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-01 17:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <6f94803c-4069-440b-ba22-ae38e8d5f24c@invalid.com> |
| In reply to | #80251 |
On 1/1/26 15:48, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:29:21 +1100, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote: > >> Groovy hepcat c186282 was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Tue, 30 Dec >> 2025 03:25 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it. >> >>> Had some non-stick film, and duck tape. SEEMS >> >> Forgive the spelling correction here; but unless it quacks and >> waddles, that's duct tape. :) > > 100 mph tape. No ducts or ducks involved. 100 mph? I thought that was strictly a military thing. Lead backed tape for ducts, for sure. Rinaldi -- Cogito, ergo dubito
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-01 23:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10j71j9$3tgvf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80252 |
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:23:38 -0600, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote: > 100 mph? I thought that was strictly a military thing. Various reference sources claim that name originates from the Vietnam War, because the tape was used for fixing helicopter rotor blades, and had to withstand the blades whirling around at that speed without coming apart. That doesn’t make sense to me. Rotor blade tips move faster than that -- in fact, in normal flight, they regularly exceed the speed of sound at some point in the rotation, which is where that clattering noise comes from: it’s a sonic boom. And nobody would trust anything as crude as duck tape in anything as safety-critical as a high-stress connection which is essential for ensuring an aircraft stays in the air ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 02:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4WF5R.776520$79B9.219713@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #80254 |
On 2026-01-01, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:23:38 -0600, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote: > >> 100 mph? I thought that was strictly a military thing. > > Various reference sources claim that name originates from the Vietnam > War, because the tape was used for fixing helicopter rotor blades, and > had to withstand the blades whirling around at that speed without > coming apart. > > That doesn’t make sense to me. Rotor blade tips move faster than that > -- in fact, in normal flight, they regularly exceed the speed of sound > at some point in the rotation, which is where that clattering noise > comes from: it’s a sonic boom. > > And nobody would trust anything as crude as duck tape in anything as > safety-critical as a high-stress connection which is essential for > ensuring an aircraft stays in the air ... Watch the movie "Fandango". At one point Truman sticks part of the airplane back on with some 100-mph tape. Back when I was flying skydivers (when I wasn't jumping myself), if a whuffo (a pejorative skydiving term for non-jumpers), would ask, "Whuffo you jump out of a perfectly good airplane?" I'd reply, "Have you _seen_ some of those airplanes?" (OK, we did keep things as shipshape as necessary - but not much more.) Our primary use of duct tape was to cover sharp edges and to stick various apparatus (e.g. GoPro cameras) to the outside of the plane. Red Green once claimed that the only tools a man needs are some duct tape and some WD-40. If it moves and shouldn't, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the WD-40. (I know, there is a tape trademarked "Duck Tape". But I figure that a more generic use for the stuff is to seal ducts.) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 05:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10j7jgc$4b0u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80256 |
On Fri, 02 Jan 2026 02:18:40 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-01-01, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> And nobody would trust anything as crude as duck tape in anything as >> safety-critical as a high-stress connection which is essential for >> ensuring an aircraft stays in the air ... > > Watch the movie "Fandango". At one point Truman sticks part of the > airplane back on with some 100-mph tape. You *do* know movies are fiction, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web