Chiff and Fipple Forums

Yesterday I had to initial a pre-printed contract with a physician acknowledging that California statue limited liability. I asked whose statue, Robert E. Lee's?

kkrell wrote:Yesterday I had to initial a pre-printed contract with a physician acknowledging that California statue limited liability. I asked whose statue, Robert E. Lee's?

Oof! Edgy.

I usually scan-read news and entertainment articles and rarely notice such mistakes. Though I once bought a very bad e-book version of Handmaid's Tale and it was a torture to read - sometimes there were missing spaces, commas, wrong random letters in words and it took me 5 minutes to figure out half a sentence. So I can understand the OP, careless writing makes reading next to impossible

Is it wrong of me that when I read news headlines such as "Man sets fire with children in house" that I wonder why he didn't use matches instead?

kkrell wrote:Yesterday I had to initial a pre-printed contract with a physician acknowledging that California statue limited liability. I asked whose statue, Robert E. Lee's?

I'm almost certain California never had a statue of General Lee. Or if they did, I don't think they do now. California has statutes on that sort of thing. Although I will bow to kkrell's authority on the matter, seeing as he lives there.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/man- ... -1.3574168

"People try to run into the fire as part of their spiritual portion of Burning Man. ... It's part of their tenants of radical self-expression."

I like a spirituality that has that lived-in feel.

And another ...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sports/air ... -1.3567141

"The bank's interest was peaked when it became clear that others also were eager."

Sounds like peak-want-see to me.

Tunborough wrote:"The bank's interest was peaked when it became clear that others also were eager."

Excuse me while I go have a peak fit of pique. Don't peek.

Tunborough wrote:
"The bank's interest was peaked when it became clear that others also were eager."

I'm sure when it peaked their interest it also wetted their appetite.

Things are going too far ...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/autos/niss ... -1.3576666

"It promises a travel range of about 400 kilometres or 150 miles before needing another charge."

I'll take the metric version, thanks.

Tunborough wrote:Things are going too far ...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/autos/niss ... -1.3576666

"It promises a travel range of about 400 kilometres or 150 miles before needing another charge."

I'll take the metric version, thanks.

That article is ambiguous. In fact, I think it probably is truly impossible to understand. The full quote of that bit, including all the words you missed out there, is that it "promises a range of about 400 kilometres in Japanese driving conditions or 150 miles in the U.S., before needing another charge." But one is left wondering just how much difference the change of driving conditions between the Japan and the US could possibly make. It does seem excessive.

The article has been updated, at least twice. What I quoted was exactly what the article said when I read it, cut and pasted. They tweaked it a bit before you saw it. Since then, they've tried to correct the math, but ended up breaking it even further:

"The zero-emissions vehicle ... promises a range of about 400 kilometres in Japanese driving conditions or 240 kilometres in the U.S., before needing another charge."

They've also added the helpful information, "Gas-engine cars generally get as much as 800 kilometres or 965 kilometres on a tank of gas." I've no idea what to make of that.

Clearly, the Associated Press has no editors left on staff.

Tunborough wrote:The article has been updated, at least twice. What I quoted was exactly what the article said when I read it, cut and pasted. They tweaked it a bit before you saw it. Since then, they've tried to correct the math, but ended up breaking it even further:

"The zero-emissions vehicle ... promises a range of about 400 kilometres in Japanese driving conditions or 240 kilometres in the U.S., before needing another charge."

They've also added the helpful information, "Gas-engine cars generally get as much as 800 kilometres or 965 kilometres on a tank of gas." I've no idea what to make of that.

Clearly, the Associated Press has no editors left on staff.

Oh blimey! Goodness only knows what's going on then!

benhall.1 wrote:

Tunborough wrote:Things are going too far ...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/autos/niss ... -1.3576666

"It promises a travel range of about 400 kilometres or 150 miles before needing another charge."

I'll take the metric version, thanks.

That article is ambiguous. In fact, I think it probably is truly impossible to understand. The full quote of that bit, including all the words you missed out there, is that it "promises a range of about 400 kilometres in Japanese driving conditions or 150 miles in the U.S., before needing another charge." But one is left wondering just how much difference the change of driving conditions between the Japan and the US could possibly make. It does seem excessive.

Air drag on a moving object goes up as the square of the speed. Cars get considerably better mileage at 60 km/hr than at 120 km/hr because the aerodynamic drag is four times higher at 120 km/hr. Electric cars are subject to the same laws of physics as gas cars, so an electric car driven at the higher average US speeds won't go as far on a tank of electrons as one driven at the slower Japaneses pace.

Yep, when driving in Japan the speed almost never goes above 60km/h in practice.