As an aside, this is exactly the kind of nonsense you get when marketing or PR firms have control over final wording. Once had someone change "uninterruptible power supply" to "non-interruptible" and then finally "interruptible" and that is how it went out in the final press release. There was some harsh language that day.

▲

OJFord 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I could forgive un to non-, but what the hell was the logic in just removing non-? That it was like (it isn't) [in]flammable just because the 'in' isn't negating 'terruptible'?

Actually, even that doesn't make sense, you can't remove non- from non-inflammable either, that would only work if it was the 'in' removed.

	▲	nickdothutton 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		This is a great question and was pretty much the last straw for me. I explained in plain english what the purpose of the UPS and battery room was, to help the PR understand why we called the thing "uninterruptible". Somehow in the final edit she confused this with "well, if the grid power can be interrupted and your servers remain on... then this means he must have meant 'interruptible' power supply.

▲

rwmj 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I hope this wasn't for a UPS company!

▲

nickdothutton 6 days ago | parent [-]

We were launching a new data centre in the UK (early 90s) and wanted to crow about how much power, battery, diesel, etc we had. I don't think the PR firm had any idea what most of the words meant.

	▲	lostlogin 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		You needed a relations management firm between you and the PR firm, turtles all the way down.