Re: off topic Question of the day..

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. :-) --

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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 > >

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Straying further OT, Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: paper sizes (was: off topic Question of the day..)

Gene Heskett composed on 2016-07-10 13:38 (UTC-0400): Wikipedia agrees, tabloid is 11x17 portrait, ledger is 17x11 landscape. But according to the other internet resources, 11x17 is a bastard American only size. It's a legacy American size, 11x8.5 letter paper times two side-by-side, one of

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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. > >

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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 > >

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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,

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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 >

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

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

off topic Question of the day..

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 exported as a pdf by inkscape, I ordered up a ream of 11x17 28lb