On 2016-07-16 13:49 +, Curt wrote:
> She was putting her foot down, but it went into her mouth.
Did she ? In any case, hearing someone from the US poke fun at
the UK for being late in updating their unit system "vaut son
pesant de cacahuètes", as people might say around these parts.
:-)
--
On Sat 16 Jul 2016 at 19:46:00 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> NIST does not agree with you. As for recognizing the metric system and
> making it legal for trade, the USA did that in 1866. What it has not
> done and what the metrification enthusiasts really want it to do is ban
> the use of the cus
NIST does not agree with you. As for recognizing the metric system and
making it legal for trade, the USA did that in 1866. What it has not
done and what the metrification enthusiasts really want it to do is ban
the use of the customary system.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On Fri 15 Jul 2016 at 22:48:11 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> Dennis writes:
> > BTW: one inch now equals 2.54 cm *exactly*, in case you haven't been
> > keeping up! (Used to be approx 2.54 cm.) This is what I mean by
> > arbitrary. Don't like the conversion ratio? Then just change it!
>
> It wasn
On Saturday 16 July 2016 14:49:30 Curt wrote:
> On 2016-07-16, John Hasler wrote:
> > Lisi writes:
> >> Not quite accurate...
> >
> > An accurate summary, the point being that it was not a change in
> > conversion factor, it was a change in definition.
>
> She was putting her foot down, but it wen
On Saturday 16 July 2016 13:21:35 John Hasler wrote:
> Lisi writes:
> > Not quite accurate...
>
> An accurate summary, the point being that it was not a change in
> conversion factor, it was a change in definition.
While we are quibbling, a) the date you gave was wrong and b) the change in
defini
On 2016-07-16, John Hasler wrote:
> Lisi writes:
>> Not quite accurate...
>
> An accurate summary, the point being that it was not a change in
> conversion factor, it was a change in definition.
She was putting her foot down, but it went into her mouth.
--
Même l’avenir n’est plus ce qu’il étai
A brief official history of the metric system in the USA:
http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/upload/1136a.pdf
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Lisi writes:
> Not quite accurate...
An accurate summary, the point being that it was not a change in
conversion factor, it was a change in definition.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On 2016-07-16, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 16 July 2016 04:48:11 John Hasler wrote:
>> Dennis writes:
>> > BTW: one inch now equals 2.54 cm *exactly*, in case you haven't been
>> > keeping up! (Used to be approx 2.54 cm.) This is what I mean by
>> > arbitrary. Don't like the conversion ratio?
On Saturday 16 July 2016 04:48:11 John Hasler wrote:
> Dennis writes:
> > BTW: one inch now equals 2.54 cm *exactly*, in case you haven't been
> > keeping up! (Used to be approx 2.54 cm.) This is what I mean by
> > arbitrary. Don't like the conversion ratio? Then just change it!
>
> It wasn't a ch
Dennis writes:
> BTW: one inch now equals 2.54 cm *exactly*, in case you haven't been
> keeping up! (Used to be approx 2.54 cm.) This is what I mean by
> arbitrary. Don't like the conversion ratio? Then just change it!
It wasn't a change in conversion ratio. It was change in definition.
Original
On Thu 14 Jul 2016 at 11:21:25 (-0500), Dennis Wicks wrote:
> Doug wrote on 07/10/2016 10:22 PM:
> >I've seen several places where this definition is shown, so it must be
> >correct.
> >If you Google
> >for paper weight, there will be at least one site that mentions paper weight
> >in
> >pounds a
Doug wrote on 07/10/2016 10:22 PM:
I've seen several places where this definition is shown, so it must be correct.
If you Google
for paper weight, there will be at least one site that mentions paper weight in
pounds and
also in grams / cm-squared, which may make sense to the Europeans reading th
On Monday 11 July 2016 07:18:44 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 11 July 2016 05:02:42 David Wright wrote:
> > "Please remember that the greater the "lb"
> > associated with a paper not always determines that it is a thicker
> > sheet. Notice that the 67lb Vellum Bristol has a lower gsm than a
> > 65
On Monday 11 July 2016 05:02:42 David Wright wrote:
> "Please remember that the greater the "lb"
> associated with a paper not always determines that it is a thicker
> sheet. Notice that the 67lb Vellum Bristol has a lower gsm than a 65lb
> cover because they are two different categories of cardsto
On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 23:22:29 (-0400), Doug wrote:
> On 07/10/2016 09:20 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Sunday, July 10, 2016 08:33:37 PM David Wright wrote:
> >> BTW I do find American paper weights about as obfuscated as anything.
[...]
> >> Yes, paper; but how much?
> >
> >From a quick goo
On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 21:20:39 (-0400), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 08:33:37 PM David Wright wrote:
> > BTW I do find American paper weights about as obfuscated as anything.
> > I think you need to serve an apprenticeship in printing to have a clue.
> > There'a website http
On 07/10/2016 09:20 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 10, 2016 08:33:37 PM David Wright wrote:
> BTW I do find American paper weights about as obfuscated as anything.
> I think you need to serve an apprenticeship in printing to have a clue.
> There'a website http://okpaper.com/ca
On Sunday, July 10, 2016 08:33:37 PM David Wright wrote:
> BTW I do find American paper weights about as obfuscated as anything.
> I think you need to serve an apprenticeship in printing to have a clue.
> There'a website http://okpaper.com/calculators/lbs-to-gsm that claims
> to do the conversion.
I'm finding this excahnge harder and harder to follow...
On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 18:28:31 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 10 July 2016 15:01:42 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 July 2016 19:47:19 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:26:01 John Hasler wrote:
> > > > Gene wri
On Sunday 10 July 2016 23:51:15 Gene Heskett wrote:
> I've obviously got too many hobbies.
No such thing as too many hobbies!! ;-)
Lisi
On Sunday 10 July 2016 18:45:05 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 10 July 2016 23:21:44 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:58:16 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > Does the image cover the whole sheet of paper??
> >
> > I can make it pretty close to borderless with another 1 or 2
> > percentage po
On Sunday 10 July 2016 17:27:45 David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 00:09:34 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > It feeds the short edge in first, unlike the paper trays, both of
> > which can be set for several different sizes, but they both feed
> > long edge first. So once its been grabbed
On Sunday 10 July 2016 23:21:44 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:58:16 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > Does the image cover the whole sheet of paper??
>
> I can make it pretty close to borderless with another 1 or 2 percentage
> points of size increase.
I was wondering whether any of the feed
On Sunday 10 July 2016 15:01:42 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 10 July 2016 19:47:19 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:26:01 John Hasler wrote:
> > > Gene writes:
> > > > Anything but letter, or maybe legal, is special order on this
> > > > side of the pond.
> > >
> > > Lots of outf
On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:58:16 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> Does the image cover the whole sheet of paper??
I can make it pretty close to borderless with another 1 or 2 percentage
points of size increase.
Its a logic flow diagram and to get the text in a logic box big enough to
read, it occupies a min
On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 00:09:34 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> It feeds the short edge in first, unlike the paper trays, both of which
> can be set for several different sizes, but they both feed long edge
> first. So once its been grabbed, there is still about 14.25 inches of
> paper hanging ou
On Sunday 10 July 2016 19:47:19 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:26:01 John Hasler wrote:
> > Gene writes:
> > > Anything but letter, or maybe legal, is special order on this side
> > > of the pond.
> >
> > Lots of outfits such as OfficeMax claim to stock A3.
> > http://www.a4supplie
Does the image cover the whole sheet of paper??
On Sunday 10 July 2016 05:09:34 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 09 July 2016 21:51:52 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 09, 2016 07:14:24 PM Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > I believe it is. Checking, yes. If that is the correct size, and it
On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:26:01 John Hasler wrote:
> Gene writes:
> > Anything but letter, or maybe legal, is special order on this side
> > of the pond.
>
> Lots of outfits such as OfficeMax claim to stock A3.
> http://www.a4supplies.com/ claims to have everthing A size.
Uh huh, and thats speci
On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 13:38:14 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 10 July 2016 06:34:00 deloptes wrote:
>
> > Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Anybody here got the magic incantation to keep it from shrinking the
> > > image to unusability on the paper in the two front trays?
> >
> > I doubt it shrin
Gene writes:
> Anything but letter, or maybe legal, is special order on this side of
> the pond.
Lots of outfits such as OfficeMax claim to stock A3.
http://www.a4supplies.com/ claims to have everthing A size.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On Sunday 10 July 2016 09:09:24 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 10 July 2016 05:09:34 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > I don't know how easy it is to buy A series paper in the US
>
> Gene, you haven't answered this. I would say, about as easy as these
> pesky non-memorable American sizes are to buy over h
On Sunday 10 July 2016 06:34:00 deloptes wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Anybody here got the magic incantation to keep it from shrinking the
> > image to unusability on the paper in the two front trays?
>
> I doubt it shrinks the image only when paper fed from specific tray.
> Perhaps you should
On 2016-07-10, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> That sounds like I'd get landscape without specifying it if I chose
> ledger. Does anyone know if thats the case with our wheezy/tde printing
> filter? Ledger isn't one of the choices, and tabloid spits out blank
> paper. And according to cups, evince is
On Sunday 10 July 2016 05:09:34 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I don't know how easy it is to buy A series paper in the US
Gene, you haven't answered this. I would say, about as easy as these pesky
non-memorable American sizes are to buy over here!!
Lisi
On Sunday 10 July 2016 04:43:13 Curt wrote:
> On 2016-07-09, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> Is Tabloid
> >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#North_American_paper_size
> >>s ) in the list?
> >
> > I believe it is. Checking, yes. If that is the correct size, and its
> > truly borderless when sel
Gene Heskett wrote:
> Anybody here got the magic incantation to keep it from shrinking the
> image to unusability on the paper in the two front trays?
I doubt it shrinks the image only when paper fed from specific tray. Perhaps
you should think in the opposite direction - shrink the image to the
On 2016-07-09, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Is Tabloid
>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#North_American_paper_sizes )
>> in the list?
>
> I believe it is. Checking, yes. If that is the correct size, and its
> truly borderless when selected as "tabloid(borderless)", if the paper
> guidance
On Saturday 09 July 2016 21:51:52 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 09, 2016 07:14:24 PM Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I believe it is. Checking, yes. If that is the correct size, and its
> > truly borderless when selected as "tabloid(borderless)", if the
> > paper guidance can be improved,
On Saturday, July 09, 2016 07:14:24 PM Gene Heskett wrote:
> I believe it is. Checking, yes. If that is the correct size, and its
> truly borderless when selected as "tabloid(borderless)", if the paper
> guidance can be improved, that would be ideal as when I trimmed it up
> and put it on a big she
On Saturday 09 July 2016 18:30:24 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote on 07/09/16 13:55:
>
>
> > lpoptions -l shows. So, what label A4, A3, ledger etc is actually
> > 11x17? In the last 20 years, here in the US, paper sizes other
> > than
>
> Is Tabloid
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
Gene Heskett wrote on 07/09/16 13:55:
> lpoptions -l shows. So, what label A4, A3, ledger etc is actually
> 11x17? In the last 20 years, here in the US, paper sizes other than
Is Tabloid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#North_American_paper_sizes
) in the list?
Regards,
jvp.
On Saturday 09 July 2016 18:28:27 Doug wrote:
> On 07/08/2016 11:45 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Friday 08 July 2016 21:35:30 Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> Greetings all;
> >>
> >> I bought, about a month ago, a big Brother MFC, proclaimed that it
> >> could do 11x17 prints when single sheet fed from
On 07/08/2016 11:45 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Friday 08 July 2016 21:35:30 Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings all;
I bought, about a month ago, a big Brother MFC, proclaimed that it
could do 11x17 prints when single sheet fed from the slot in the rear.
Its a Brother MFC-J6920DW.
So having a rock
On Saturday 09 July 2016 02:56:38 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
> With cups-client all printer specific options can be listed with
>
> lpoptions -l
>
> To select a specific printer add '-p '. See 'man
> lpoptions' or http://localhost:631/help .
>
> Regards,
> jvp.
Thats informative, but the printers
With cups-client all printer specific options can be listed with
lpoptions -l
To select a specific printer add '-p '. See 'man lpoptions' or
http://localhost:631/help .
Regards,
jvp.
On Friday 08 July 2016 21:35:30 Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings all;
>
> I bought, about a month ago, a big Brother MFC, proclaimed that it
> could do 11x17 prints when single sheet fed from the slot in the rear.
>
> Its a Brother MFC-J6920DW.
> So having a rockhopper output file that has been exp
49 matches
Mail list logo
