New Vobster website goes online!!!!

rads wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:23:33 -0000, "Bardo" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> BTW - your 'toy' works perfectly well on my browser!
>>
> Except it has a maximum body weight of 99.9 kg, and most divers I know
> are considerable heavier than that, and it seems to recommend an
> ascent rate of 265.4 fps. Won't that bend me?

Not in the slightest. Well not unless you hit something
while you're going at that speed. That will bend you good
and propper. The new Mk 4 goes well transonic. The ear
defenders hanging over my computer in the workshop are
not for show.

Oh and that's not Kg that's grains.
There are 225120 grains to a slug.
A slug is 32.16 pounds.

Half the weight in slugs multiplied by the speed
in feet per second squared gives you the kenetic
energy in foot pounds. The British legal limit
for an air rifle is 12 foot pounds and a pistol
6 foot pounds.

Don't ya love these wonderful Imperial units?

nigelH

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:13:34 -0000, "Nigel Hewitt"
<news@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote:


>A slug is 32.16 pounds.

Flippin' Heck

<Runs out to stock up on salt>

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:13:34 -0000, "Nigel Hewitt"
<news@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote:


>A slug is 32.16 pounds.

Flippin' Heck

<Runs out to stock up on salt>

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:13:34 -0000, "Nigel Hewitt"
<news@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote:


>A slug is 32.16 pounds.

Flippin' Heck

<Runs out to stock up on salt>

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:13:34 -0000, "Nigel Hewitt"
<news@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote:


>A slug is 32.16 pounds.

Flippin' Heck

<Runs out to stock up on salt>

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:13:34 -0000, "Nigel Hewitt"
<news@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote:


>A slug is 32.16 pounds.

Flippin' Heck

<Runs out to stock up on salt>

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:22:12 -0000, "Bardo" <me@privacy.net> wrote:


>>
>> CSS?
>
>Trust me, Pete - I'm well versed in CSS. Most of what you see on screen is
>controlled in some way using CSS. What CSS won't let you do, however, is add
>and change individual menu options - sure, you can change the 'look and
>feel' but you cannot make a change to the structure of the menu (ie. what
>links to where) using CSS - CSS is, after all, just a clever way of
>controlling the 'look and feel' of what's displayed...
>
>
Well I was only trying to be helpful.

Pete S.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:22:12 -0000, "Bardo" <me@privacy.net> wrote:


>>
>> CSS?
>
>Trust me, Pete - I'm well versed in CSS. Most of what you see on screen is
>controlled in some way using CSS. What CSS won't let you do, however, is add
>and change individual menu options - sure, you can change the 'look and
>feel' but you cannot make a change to the structure of the menu (ie. what
>links to where) using CSS - CSS is, after all, just a clever way of
>controlling the 'look and feel' of what's displayed...
>
>
Well I was only trying to be helpful.

Pete S.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:22:12 -0000, "Bardo" <me@privacy.net> wrote:


>>
>> CSS?
>
>Trust me, Pete - I'm well versed in CSS. Most of what you see on screen is
>controlled in some way using CSS. What CSS won't let you do, however, is add
>and change individual menu options - sure, you can change the 'look and
>feel' but you cannot make a change to the structure of the menu (ie. what
>links to where) using CSS - CSS is, after all, just a clever way of
>controlling the 'look and feel' of what's displayed...
>
>
Well I was only trying to be helpful.

Pete S.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:22:12 -0000, "Bardo" <me@privacy.net> wrote:


>>
>> CSS?
>
>Trust me, Pete - I'm well versed in CSS. Most of what you see on screen is
>controlled in some way using CSS. What CSS won't let you do, however, is add
>and change individual menu options - sure, you can change the 'look and
>feel' but you cannot make a change to the structure of the menu (ie. what
>links to where) using CSS - CSS is, after all, just a clever way of
>controlling the 'look and feel' of what's displayed...
>
>
Well I was only trying to be helpful.

Pete S.