Within a whisker of failure
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Robin
Faichney
wrote:

To get really hot, you have to be re-entering the atmosphere, I
believe.

Apparently people falling out of planes at 30,000 feet have all
their clothes stripped off by the time they reach the ground - I
don't know whether they are burnt off, or ripped off.


I suspect that they get ripped off, there doesn't seem to be reports
that they suffer from 100pc burns - which would mean they would be
dead before they hit the ground, which they don't seem to be
(according to published PM reports)... :~((

Within a whisker of failure
 

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...

Apparently people falling out of planes at 30,000 feet have all their
clothes stripped off by the time they reach the ground - I don't know
whether they are burnt off, or ripped off.


I suspect that they get ripped off, there doesn't seem to be reports that
they suffer from 100pc burns - which would mean they would be dead before
they hit the ground, which they don't seem to be (according to published
PM reports)... :~((

In America their relatives can sue on behalf of the victims' suffering on
the way down and then pocket the money as heirs.

Americans are nuts.

--
Max Demian

Within a whisker of failure
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...

Apparently people falling out of planes at 30,000 feet have all
their clothes stripped off by the time they reach the ground - I
don't know whether they are burnt off, or ripped off.


I suspect that they get ripped off, there doesn't seem to be
reports that they suffer from 100pc burns - which would mean they
would be dead before they hit the ground, which they don't seem to
be (according to published PM reports)... :~((

In America their relatives can sue on behalf of the victims'
suffering on the way down and then pocket the money as heirs.

Errr, and Hadock is 10 euros a kilo....


Americans are nuts.


True, well a good proportion! :~(

Within a whisker of failure
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
Or maybe, knowing they are about to die, they are sufficiently uninhibited
to disrobe voluntarily...

Ohh, it'd be really nice to get some fresh air around yer bits . . .

It's set me off, this! I'm off to run round the park naked. See you in six
months.

Bill

Within a whisker of failure
 

In message , Max Demian
writes
"Kevin Seal" wrote in message
...
In message , ":Jerry:"
writes

"Johnny B Good" wrote in message
k...
snip

Well, freezing something that is otherwise relatively harmless when
used as a projectile was proven to have potentially fatal
consequences
by BR when they loaded the test cannon with a frozen chicken to
verify
that the driver's screen on the HST was bird strike proof. They got
rather a shock when they managed to prove the screen wasn't
_frozen_bird_ strike proof!

Nor was the bulkhead behind were the driver would have been sitting
either IIRC!


Sorry, it's an urban legend. Never happened.

How do you prove that a thing hasn't happened?

Snopes.
--
Kevin Seal
F800ST
{walrus1 at gmail dot com}

Within a whisker of failure
 

"Kevin Seal" wrote in message
...
In message , Max Demian
writes
"Kevin Seal" wrote in message
...

Sorry, it's an urban legend. Never happened.

How do you prove that a thing hasn't happened?

Snopes.

So how do they prove it?

--
Max Demian

Within a whisker of failure
 

Ivan wrote:

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:16:38 +0100, charles
wrote:
No-one is required to throw anything away and for repairs to existing
equipment you can still used leaded solder.

No-one repairs things nowadays. It isn't worth it.


There was an interesting article in the the ERT trade magazine a few
weeks ago, it was titled something along the lines of 'From showroom to
landfill' describing how ever increasing numbers of large flat screen
tvs were winding up in landfills after as little as 14 months of use,
simply because of the complete lack of any kind of backup, and even
where there was, many manufacturers were deliberately designing in
none-serviceability and pricing spares at such astronomical prices that
repairs would be totally uneconomic.. There was also the suggestion
that the government should intervene and compel firms to supply service
information and spares for up to six years after manufacturer.

Bill



There are alot of reason for this, many of which the retailers are
responsible for.

I think the main factor is the retailers refusal to acknowledge their
responsibilities under the Sales of Goods act after the 1st year unless
you actually take them to court.

Talking about spare parts is only a symptom of the real issue, that of
reliability. I would like to see a clear requirement for products to
last 6 years unless areas for checking/servicing are identified in the
manual or they have to specify the lifetime on the packaging if less
than 6 years. Indeed this already exists in the Sale of goods act (eg a
TV should last 6 years by any reasonable measure, if it doesn't its a
design issue and therefore is a fault present at the time of sale), but
it is too easy for the retailer to just say 'no, take us to court then',
because it is then upto the customer to prove the fault was a design
one, a very expensive task. I think simply keeping the responsibility
of proof (that the fault was customer induced) with the retailer for 6
years might solve it. You would soon see repair and diagosys
departments emerging again.

--
TonyS

Within a whisker of failure
 

Tony wrote:

but it is too easy for the retailer to just say 'no, take us
to court then', because it is then upto the customer to prove the
fault was a design one, a very expensive task. I think simply
keeping the responsibility of proof (that the fault was customer
induced) with the retailer for 6 years might solve it. You would
soon see repair and diagosys departments emerging again.

But why did the government originally force the retailers to shoulder
virtually all of the responsibility, thereby allowing the manufacturers to
get off almost Scott free?. IMO perhaps if a bit more pressure in the way of
litigation for shoddy merchandise, or a failure to offer any kind of
reasonable backup was applied to them, then the quality of their goods might
improve accordingly.

Even as things stand many small retailers (and some of the larger ones) are
now already working on such slender margins as it is that I expect to see a
lot more failed businesses in the domestic electronics industry before the
end of this year.

Within a whisker of failure
 

In message , Max Demian
writes
"Kevin Seal" wrote in message
...
In message , Max Demian
writes
"Kevin Seal" wrote in message
...

Sorry, it's an urban legend. Never happened.

How do you prove that a thing hasn't happened?

Snopes.

So how do they prove it?

Quote:
The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular
page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page
so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may
check those sources for themselves.
Unquote.

But then how do you prove anything, we could all be a dream of a
turtle....
--
Kevin Seal
F800ST
{walrus1 at gmail dot com}

Within a whisker of failure
 

In article , Ivan
wrote:
Tony wrote:

but it is too easy for the retailer to just say 'no, take us to court
then', because it is then upto the customer to prove the fault was a
design one, a very expensive task. I think simply keeping the
responsibility of proof (that the fault was customer induced) with the
retailer for 6 years might solve it. You would soon see repair and
diagosys departments emerging again.

But why did the government originally force the retailers to shoulder
virtually all of the responsibility, thereby allowing the manufacturers
to get off almost Scott free?.

Because the UK/EU law in this area is based on saying that your 'contract'
is with the retailer, not the maker. It is the retailer's reponsibility to
ensure they can arrange for repairs, or whatever else is required by that.
If this means they decide they can't sell a given maker's products as they
are unreliable and unrepairable, this would put pressure on such makers.

The problem is that the law is largely dependent on the purchaser being
willing to take the seller to court. (And the purchaser knowing their
entitlements.) That seems to me the key failing of the present system.
Means both retailers and makers can ignore the legal requirements and
simply endure the few cases taken to court.

FWIW I made the mistake of buying a DVD recorder from Philips. Went wrong
after about 3 years. Told it was 'unrepairable' by them. The law in the
UK/EU is that they then have to offer you a replacement of the same
functionality for a cost equivalent to a repair. (The presumption is that
they must keep stock of units and components for this.) This cover can
extend for around 5-6 years depending on the details.

This they failed to do. Tried to sell me a current unit without the same
functionality for the wholesale price. i.e. zero discount as far as they
were concerned, and not an actual replacement.

I could have taken them to court, but decided it would be a waste of effort
out of proportion with any 'loss' I'd suffered. So just bought from someone
else and decided to remember never to buy anything from Philips again.
Shame as - when working - the recorder gave excellent results.

Should any retailers fail due to being unable to sell Philips units for
such reasons, then the responsibility is with Philips, not with the
customers who went elsewhere or the government.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html