How can I destroy a transformer?

[Marcus Fox]

Also posted on uk.tech.electronic-security.

Marcus

[Martin Angove]

Hmmm...

I suppose, having "all power" they would be *able*, should they wish, to make deliberate mistakes. The question is, would such a being choose to, or is it just the omniscient who are also perfect?

Hwyl!

M.

[Martin Angove]

I was referring to the use of "you'r" instead of "you're". I can see how you could argue this both ways - but to do so relies on knowing the intent of the writer.

You see, we come across such dreadful grammar on usenet that the use of "your" in the sentence would not have been uncommon. This *is* a grammar mistake. I suppose I thought that "you'r" was a further mistake along the same lines (not that Ian has a habit of such attrocious grammar).

Given that Ian is not overly prone to grammatical errors, your alternative explanation of a spelling mistake (simple mistyping, leaving out the final "e") is probably more valid than my initial reaction.

Just goes to prove that I am neither omnipotent, nor omniscient.

It's still a mistake though, so where does that leave our omnipotent being?

:-)

Hwyl!

M.

[Martin Angove]

My sister once put a (plastic) electric kettle on the gas stove. Yes, we used to have a gas kettle, but we'd switched to electric a couple of years before this event...

Hwyl!

M.

[Michael McNeil]

I am glad to say you never mention this except in passing. Passing strangers, passing busses, passing benches, passing wind, passing parcels, passing out, passing....

[Ian Stirling]

To clarify, it was indeed a typo. This is largely due to the reduced quality of my typing when I'm lying down with my subnotebook held vertically with my little fingers. When typing normally, I'm reasonably accurate.

[N. Thornton]

Lets posit a wild possibility. A buys a hundred products off B. A damages 20 or so of them, and says to A 'oy, these are all dud, replace em please.' A hands the 20 tested to B, saying it was clearly pointless to test any more, theyre all duds. B could test the rest, but faced with what looks like 100% failure rate, might be tempted to write them off and deliver further goods. A says 'we'll return you this lot when you deliver those, and not until.' Second delivery is arranged, goods are accpted, at which point A says 'we had to move them into the warehouse, we needed the space here. We can arrrange for you to collect in a weeks time from that depot 100 miles away' Either B says dont bother, or B turns up but no-one is there. Etc.

180 items for the price of 100, plus another 20 that you know how to fix for a minimal cost.

Whether this is whats going on I have no idea. Certainly there are other explanations as well, but I cant think of any that I would consider a Good Thing.

Regards, NT

[Lurch]

On 4 Mar 2004 04:27:26 -0800, in uk.d-i-y [e-mail] (N. Thornton) strung together this:

Quite possible, whatever the motive behind the original plan a fraudulent operation is being planned. I'm surprised to see some actual responses with technical backing though, obviously some people are quite willing to become accomplices in fraud!

[N. Thornton]

Well, I did wonder if it would be regarded that way. I've noticed that almost no matter whats asked, someones willing to have a go... except when it comes to nuclear, then people really are reserved.

Regards, NT

[Neil Jones]

The problem there is not so much the principles of design; it's difficult to get the fuel.

Neil