- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,738
- Reaction score
- 6,413
oh BOGOF,BOGO "buy one, get one" when it really means "buy one, get one free" or "buy one, get two"
oh BOGOF,BOGO "buy one, get one" when it really means "buy one, get one free" or "buy one, get two"
you don’t like dogs?Dog Barf, an insult the to the cellulose insulation industry.
Sounds like someone there is a fan of Mission Impossible and Jason Bourne films. Thinks he's running a super spy hit squad!Lately, our administration has been calling all of our crews "assets" and it has been driving me crazy. Our vehicles and equipments are assets. Our crews or teams are people performing a job which requires a human touch. I'm sure it is intentional with modern management techniquest, using dehumanizing language makes you feel expendable.
if you were a bartender, I hope you don’t pour poorly.The confused misuse of the following similar sounding words, but with very different uses:
Your, you're
InflammableIrregardless
Luv the pups!you don’t like dogs?
And there was a time when things that we think of as "flammable", such as tanker trucks of gasoline, were labeled "inflammable". Maybe that observation belongs in the "you might be a child in the '70s" thread rather than here.Well, "inflammable" is in the dictionary as a synonym for "flammable"... despite the "in-" suffix normally negating the adjective. But yeah, it's a useless extra syllable...
And there was a time when things that we think of as "flammable", such as tanker trucks of gasoline, were labeled "inflammable". Maybe that observation belongs in the "you might be a child in the '70s" thread rather than here.
I don’t know, it might sound cool to say “we have assets on route” but I guess it’s only fun once or twice.Lately, our administration has been calling all of our crews "assets" and it has been driving me crazy. Our vehicles and equipments are assets. Our crews or teams are people performing a job which requires a human touch. I'm sure it is intentional with modern management techniquest, using dehumanizing language makes you feel expendable.
Sigh...here I go again.Starters- they've been igniters forever, besides who do you think we're going to fool?
View attachment 644283
Umm, no, it isn't,Well, "inflammable" is in the dictionary as a synonym for "flammable"... despite the "in-" suffix normally negating the adjective. But yeah, it's a useless extra syllable...
inflammable (adj.)
"able to be set alight," c. 1600, from French inflammable, from Medieval Latin inflammabilis, from Latin inflammare "to set on fire" (see inflame).Since 1980s use of the word, especially in safety warnings, has been sometimes discouraged for fear it could be misunderstood as meaning "non-flammable" through confusion of the two prefixes in-. The word was used earlier in medicine in the sense "liable to inflammation" (early 15c.). Related: Inflammability.
Flammable, inflammable, and combustible all have similar sounding definitions, but there are important differences, if you deal with hazmat and firefighting. Basically:And there was a time when things that we think of as "flammable", such as tanker trucks of gasoline, were labeled "inflammable". Maybe that observation belongs in the "you might be a child in the '70s" thread rather than here.
Which brings to mind, did "Conrail" mean the government was with rail or against rail?through confusion of the two prefixes ...
Where is a rocket motor, I guess it’s combustible?Flammable, inflammable, and combustible all have similar sounding definitions, but there are important differences, if you deal with hazmat and firefighting. Basically:
Flammable - can be easily set aflame with an ignition source at 60 degrees or less. (I.e. gasoline)
Inflammable - can be set burning on its own without an ignition source. (i.e. Unstable chemicals or certain elements)
Combustible - can burn, but it's temperature must be raised above 60 degrees before it will burn. (Certain fuel oils, and materials that are around us all the time, but not as easily burned.)
So ends today's lesson in fire safety.
Rocket motors are here,Where is a rocket motor, I guess it’s combustible?
“There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good.” — Tom Mueller, SpaceX propulsion chief, Air and Space magazine article, January 2012
Usually flammable, but some engines don't seem to light quite so easily, causing the flier to become heated!Where is a rocket motor, I guess it’s combustible?
You may know that the English language has borrowed (or stolen, if you prefer) many, many words from other languages throughout much of its recorded history.
As I mentioned in my introductory article, the invasion of England by Norse tribes from 800-1000 AD resulted in a large wave of borrowed words from Old Norse, even in the basic layer of vocabulary.
Then came the Norman invasion in 1066, which triggered a massive influx of French loanwords into English over a period of centuries. And since the Renaissance, English has borrowed numerous words and affixes from Latin and Greek.
Now, I asked you to imagine that the Viking invasions and the Norman Conquest had never happened. This is all purely hypothetical - and somebody who has a much greater historical knowledge than I do might argue that these invasions were inevitable - but suppose English had never borrowed a massive influx of words from Old Norse and French as a result of these conquests.
How different would English be?
Well, it would certainly bear many more similarities to its closest Germanic relatives than real life English does. There would be far more cognates (related words which come from the same ancestral language) between English and its close relatives Dutch and German if much of the native word stock had not been replaced or reinforced with Norse, French and Latin equivalents.
It's estimated that only 26% of all English words are of Germanic origin (and that includes borrowed words from Old Norse). 29% are from French, 29% are from Latin, 6% are from Greek, 4% derive from proper nouns, and the remaining 6% are from other miscellaneous languages or have an unknown or obscure origin.
+100. It is ageist and imports a lack of respect for your elders.
UL 94x-yFlammable, inflammable, and combustible all have similar sounding definitions, but there are important differences, if you deal with hazmat and firefighting. Basically:
Flammable - can be easily set aflame with an ignition source at 60 degrees or less. (I.e. gasoline)
Inflammable - can be set burning on its own without an ignition source. (i.e. Unstable chemicals or certain elements)
Combustible - can burn, but it's temperature must be raised above 60 degrees before it will burn. (Certain fuel oils, and materials that are around us all the time, but not as easily burned.)
So ends today's lesson in fire safety.
I think you missed the point. My point is that if you make an argument or point by saying "I feel that..." I assume you haven't thought it through and are just giving me some emotional response that may or may not make any sense given the facts. Even if it's true that people make decisions emotionally and rationalize it afterward, that doesn't mean I have to take their emotional positions seriously. Think it through and say with confidence, "I think that..." and I am more likely to consider what you say.Sad. You're missing 80% of human communication.
Or perhaps they've learned that "I feel that..." is a softer way to say "I think that...", useful when the audience might bristle at whatever it is they're going to assert.I think you missed the point. My point is that if you make an argument or point by saying "I feel that..." I assume you haven't thought it through and are just giving me some emotional response that may or may not make any sense given the facts. Even if it's true that people make decisions emotionally and rationalize it afterward, that doesn't mean I have to take their emotional positions seriously. Think it through and say with confidence, "I think that..." and I am more likely to consider what you say.
+1 I use it to start a idea if I think that the person I’m talking to will not like it.Or perhaps they've learned that "I feel that..." is a softer way to say "I think that...", useful when the audience might bristle at whatever it is they're going to assert.
A lot of language is used to convey things other than the literal meaning of the words.
BP is regulated too, what is the code name for that. I'll call them igniters, if someone else wants to call them starters, lighters, initiators that's ok with me. The latter names are sometimes used by vendors in the same sentence including the word igniters. I mostly see igniters used. I again will state that if we are good boys and girls with them, we don't have nothing to worry about.Sigh...here I go again.
{Educational rant on}
There is a real, honest-to-Odin reason for calling them starters. There is a certain government organization (that shall remain nameless) which appears not to know the difference between an ematch and an igniter. If memory serves, they don't define either one in words. They use images. Which were incorrectly labeled BTW. (I can think of reasons that the labeling might have been deliberate but I won't share them.)
Nonetheless, whether we like it or not..."igniters" legally are a regulated item.
The leadership of TRA and NAR spent years in courtrooms and in meetings with government officials, fighting regulations. This is simply another way to fight regulation. Unlike "igniters" and "ematches", starters are not intended to ignite fireworks or nefarious devices. "Intended use" is to start rocket motors.
So IF it ever came up in a court of law---and I very much doubt that it will, now---defense could point out that these are starters. Judges and staff are often technically clueless, and might well rule summarily, simply based on the name and the intended use.
Why do you think Estes renamed these items? To fool someone? Of course not. I would bet long odds that they did so, not on a whim, but based on their legal teams' advice. Please...think about that for a moment.
Love all the discussion. "Starters, igniters, lighters, e-matches, fuses, etc." I'm an "igniter" man myself. Now I'm waiting for the engine/motor discussion to ensue or possibly another glue thread.BP is regulated too, what is the code name for that. I'll call them igniters, if someone else wants to call them starters, lighters, initiators that's ok with me. The latter names are sometimes used by vendors in the same sentence including the word igniters. I mostly see igniters used. I again will state that if we are good boys and girls with them, we don't have nothing to worry about.
BTW: NAR safety code: Term used in both codes.
- Ignition System. I will launch my rockets with an electrical launch system, and with electrical motor igniters that are installed in the motor only after my rocket is at the launch pad or in a designated prepping area. My launch system will have a safety interlock that is in series with the launch switch that is not installed until my rocket is ready for launch and will use a launch switch that returns to the “off” position when released. The function of onboard energetics and firing circuits will be inhibited except when my rocket is in the launching position.
Enter your email address to join: