Electricity meter checking, NSW

[yaputya]

yaputya wrote:
yaputya wrote:
Bob Milutinovic wrote:

Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"

On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any
word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.


Disputed does not mean incorrect.

Not correct either, eh? Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!
Words are NEVER removed from the OED so obsolete and disputed forms like "rooves"are there for ever.
As I posted elsewhere, if you look at ACTUAL usage of *British English* in the
British National Corpus, "roofs" has 100 times more entries than "rooves".


Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.

If correct I wager that they have many more "NEW" words.

I am correct.
As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
Macquarie Dictionary Data - The full edition consists of over 140,000 references and over 210,000 definitions while the
Concise
and
other smaller editions as well as educational dictionaries are also available.
http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/anonymous@919CA23945883/-/p/dict/dataDeals.html

Wanna bet? OK, first you have to define exactly what you mean by "NEW" words.
Words added to the latest edition?
Words added since the first edition?
Be precise.
Then provide some evidence of how many:
1) "NEW" words are in the OED?
2) "NEW" words are in The Macquarie Dictionary?

Have you worked out what you meant by "NEW" words yet?

See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Can't find it in that British English dictionary, eh?




Don't need to as the OED is recognised as the benchmark of english, why would I need other dictionaries?

The point is, you were putting shit on the Macquarie (which IS the benchmark of
Australian English, by the way) because it didn't have "rooves". What you fail to
realise is that the OED NEVER deletes words, so they put in notations like "disputed"
and "obsolete" in entries for outdated words like "rooves". Most other dictionaries
simply delete such oddities after their usage falls to almost nothing.

A poster stated that it was rooves, I posted the OED version showing that it prefered roofs but could be rooves.

When maquarie dict. first started it was known for inserting almost any fad new word before you could sneeze.

I can't find any such criticism of the Macquarie. Perhaps you are misinformed.

the trouble with doing this prematurely is that it legitimises the new word therefore accelerating its introduction when it may
not have taken hold otherwise.

I doubt if dictionaries "legitimise" new words that way, the word has to be in
common use before it is included. You may not be using it but many others
would be doing so. The dictionary follows usage, not the other way round.

 

[F Murtz]

yaputya wrote:
yaputya wrote:
Bob Milutinovic wrote:

Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"

On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any
word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.


Disputed does not mean incorrect.

Not correct either, eh? Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!
Words are NEVER removed from the OED so obsolete and disputed forms like "rooves"are there for ever.
As I posted elsewhere, if you look at ACTUAL usage of *British English* in the
British National Corpus, "roofs" has 100 times more entries than "rooves".


Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.

If correct I wager that they have many more "NEW" words.

I am correct.
As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
Macquarie Dictionary Data - The full edition consists of over 140,000 references and over 210,000 definitions while the
Concise
and
other smaller editions as well as educational dictionaries are also available.
http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/anonymous@919CA23945883/-/p/dict/dataDeals.html

Wanna bet? OK, first you have to define exactly what you mean by "NEW" words.
Words added to the latest edition?
Words added since the first edition?
Be precise.
Then provide some evidence of how many:
1) "NEW" words are in the OED?
2) "NEW" words are in The Macquarie Dictionary?



Have you worked out what you meant by "NEW" words yet?




See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Can't find it in that British English dictionary, eh?




Don't need to as the OED is recognised as the benchmark of english, why would I need other dictionaries?

The point is, you were putting shit on the Macquarie (which IS the benchmark of
Australian English, by the way) because it didn't have "rooves". What you fail to
realise is that the OED NEVER deletes words, so they put in notations like "disputed"
and "obsolete" in entries for outdated words like "rooves". Most other dictionaries
simply delete such oddities after their usage falls to almost nothing.

A poster stated that it was rooves, I posted the OED version showing that it prefered roofs but could be rooves.

When maquarie dict. first started it was known for inserting almost any fad new word before you could sneeze.

I can't find any such criticism of the Macquarie. Perhaps you are misinformed.

the trouble with doing this prematurely is that it legitimises the new word therefore accelerating its introduction when it may
not have taken hold otherwise.

I doubt if dictionaries "legitimise" new words that way, the word has to be in
common use before it is included. You may not be using it but many others
would be doing so. The dictionary follows usage, not the other way round.

And when challenged say indignantly, it is a word, it is in the dictionary.

 

[yaputya]

yaputya wrote:
yaputya wrote:
yaputya wrote:
Bob Milutinovic wrote:

Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"

On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any
word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.


Disputed does not mean incorrect.

Not correct either, eh? Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!
Words are NEVER removed from the OED so obsolete and disputed forms like "rooves"are there for ever.
As I posted elsewhere, if you look at ACTUAL usage of *British English* in the
British National Corpus, "roofs" has 100 times more entries than "rooves".


Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.

If correct I wager that they have many more "NEW" words.

I am correct.
As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
Macquarie Dictionary Data - The full edition consists of over 140,000 references and over 210,000 definitions while the
Concise
and
other smaller editions as well as educational dictionaries are also available.
http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/anonymous@919CA23945883/-/p/dict/dataDeals.html

Wanna bet? OK, first you have to define exactly what you mean by "NEW" words.
Words added to the latest edition?
Words added since the first edition?
Be precise.
Then provide some evidence of how many:
1) "NEW" words are in the OED?
2) "NEW" words are in The Macquarie Dictionary?



Have you worked out what you meant by "NEW" words yet?




See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Can't find it in that British English dictionary, eh?




Don't need to as the OED is recognised as the benchmark of english, why would I need other dictionaries?

The point is, you were putting shit on the Macquarie (which IS the benchmark of
Australian English, by the way) because it didn't have "rooves". What you fail to
realise is that the OED NEVER deletes words, so they put in notations like "disputed"
and "obsolete" in entries for outdated words like "rooves". Most other dictionaries
simply delete such oddities after their usage falls to almost nothing.






A poster stated that it was rooves, I posted the OED version showing that it prefered roofs but could be rooves.

When maquarie dict. first started it was known for inserting almost any fad new word before you could sneeze.

I can't find any such criticism of the Macquarie. Perhaps you are misinformed.

the trouble with doing this prematurely is that it legitimises the new word therefore accelerating its introduction when it may
not have taken hold otherwise.

I doubt if dictionaries "legitimise" new words that way, the word has to be in
common use before it is included. You may not be using it but many others
would be doing so. The dictionary follows usage, not the other way round.

And when challenged say indignantly, it is a word, it is in the dictionary.

Do you actually have a copy of The Macquarie Dictionary? Can you cite some examples of
"macquarie has any word yelled three times in their hearing." that have gotten you so upset?

 

[Jasen Betts]

I don't see the point. What happens when the power is restored?
Obviously, the pump runs until the temperature returns to the set point.
If disconnecting the power has prevented the pump from running earlier,
it will now run for that much longer because the temperature has risen
further. Net result on energy consumption(leaving out the second order
effect of a higher average temperature, which the consumer would
compensate for by turning the thermostat down) - nil.

It's for the 7:10 to 7:12 peak where zillions of people get up in
first add break of "Oz Got Talent" to make a cup of tea.

nobble a few zillion fridge pumps for 5 minutes = win.

The same applies to air conditioners.

yeah