Things you've always wondered about but couldn't be bothered to find out

[Angel eyes]

5 hours ago, Tommy Brown said:

Quite surprised to suddenly be able to see the amount of dust on crumbs on my laminate floor. Wasn't as obvious without the light.

Do you no swipe o the dust/crumbs into a wee pile on laminate then hoover it up! 

[Locky]

Got a random one. This isn't really a case of 'can't be bothered to find out', more a case of 'don't even know how to find out'. But, does anyone recall an event which took place in, IIRC, the summer of 2003 down Leith. It was something military related, with a lot of navy ships docked from navies all over I believe. I was only 9 so my memories are all vague and sketchy but I stayed at my Aunties off Junction Street that weekend and I just remember seeing loads of guys around Leith Walk on the Friday evening dressed in their proper navy uniforms.

 

Then on the Saturday, there was an air show of sorts which I believe simulated a plane fight. Weather was shite so we didn't go to actually see it sadly, but from my Aunties living room window, we could see a portion of sky unrestricted by surrounding buildings which was enough to catch glimpses of the fighter jets flying around. At one point, they simulated a missile strike or something which led to a big puff of black smoke going up in the sky. Although from our vantage point, all we saw was a plane disappear 2 seconds before it and genuinely thought it had crashed.  

 

Please, someone tell me I'm not having a fever dream. Can anyone recall what it might have been? My Mum thought the Tall Ships maybe but all I find online for that is from 1995 and it definitely wasn't that. Was anyone there and able to shed light?

[milky_26]

28 minutes ago, Locky said:

Got a random one. This isn't really a case of 'can't be bothered to find out', more a case of 'don't even know how to find out'. But, does anyone recall an event which took place in, IIRC, the summer of 2003 down Leith. It was something military related, with a lot of navy ships docked from navies all over I believe. I was only 9 so my memories are all vague and sketchy but I stayed at my Aunties off Junction Street that weekend and I just remember seeing loads of guys around Leith Walk on the Friday evening dressed in their proper navy uniforms.

 

Then on the Saturday, there was an air show of sorts which I believe simulated a plane fight. Weather was shite so we didn't go to actually see it sadly, but from my Aunties living room window, we could see a portion of sky unrestricted by surrounding buildings which was enough to catch glimpses of the fighter jets flying around. At one point, they simulated a missile strike or something which led to a big puff of black smoke going up in the sky. Although from our vantage point, all we saw was a plane disappear 2 seconds before it and genuinely thought it had crashed.  

 

Please, someone tell me I'm not having a fever dream. Can anyone recall what it might have been? My Mum thought the Tall Ships maybe but all I find online for that is from 1995 and it definitely wasn't that. Was anyone there and able to shed light?

was it the international festival of the sea?

[Locky]

19 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Tell us more about your dreams of men in Navy dress, big missiles, and Maverick and Goose shooting all over each other in the skies above EH6, Locky.

 Come to mention it, they were naked. One even claimed to be my Uncle.  

[Locky]

Just now, milky_26 said:

was it the international festival of the sea?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Festivals_of_the_Sea

 

Seems you're absolutely spot on Milky! Top stuff. Gives me something to go on looking it up at least. Cheers.

[JWL]

Another random one. When you see these nutters, usually in some Middle Eastern or African war zone, firing live rounds randomly into the air, why are more people not killed or injured when the bullets fall back down to the ground?

[Dick Dastardly]

19 minutes ago, JWL said:

Another random one. When you see these nutters, usually in some Middle Eastern or African war zone, firing live rounds randomly into the air, why are more people not killed or injured when the bullets fall back down to the ground?

I've actually wondered that before and couldn't be bothered looking it up. I bet there are more injuries than you would expect in crowded areas. 

[graygo]

1 hour ago, JWL said:

Another random one. When you see these nutters, usually in some Middle Eastern or African war zone, firing live rounds randomly into the air, why are more people not killed or injured when the bullets fall back down to the ground?

 

I'm guessing here but it could be that the force a bullet is projected out of a gun is far greater than the force of gravity.

 

Or they're firing blanks and are just trying to look hard.

 

 

Edit:   OOFT!!

 

When fired into the air, bullets can return to the ground at speeds greater than 200 ft./sec., a sufficient force to penetrate the human skull and cause serious injury or death

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a2.htm

Edited September 2, 2022 by graygo

[milky_26]

59 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I've actually wondered that before and couldn't be bothered looking it up. I bet there are more injuries than you would expect in crowded areas. 

Bullets fired straight into the air can come down as far away as 2 miles. 

[FWJ]

Thing I can never get my head around is if you fire a bullet (horizontally) and drop one at the same time, they both hit the ground at the same time.

[been here before]

30 minutes ago, FWJ said:

Thing I can never get my head around is if you fire a bullet (horizontally) and drop one at the same time, they both hit the ground at the same time.

 

Ooooohhh not quite:

 

 

[graygo]

11 minutes ago, been here before said:

 

Ooooohhh not quite:

 

 

 

I watched that too, 38 milliseconds is effectively nothing to be fair. 

[Tazio]

I remember my ex wife went to Beirut for New Year to visit family. Like a lot of Christian Lebanese families they had a house in the city and another in the mountains above it in the family village so they could escape the heat of the summer and the snow of the winter. They went to the house in the hills for the bells and sure enough at midnight many dafties in town dug a gun out from somewhere under the stairs that they had, just in case, and fired it in the air at midnight. Quite alarming for her as she didn’t expect it. 
I’m not sure if anyone had a bullet land on them though. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

when bullets are fired in the air and then descend they loss speed and power ( cant think of what terms are really used) therefore are less likely to harm someone once they fall back down to the ground.  well at least i think so.

[Dick Dastardly]

3 hours ago, milky_26 said:

Bullets fired straight into the air can come down as far away as 2 miles. 

But how close can they come down? 

[Dawnrazor]

3 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

But how close can they come down? 

I can't watch youtube videos for some reason but I remember seeing that one on tv and thinking it's not accurate, a rifle barrel is fitted in the stock at an angle to fire the bullet at an upward angle so the bullet passes the line of the sights, open or telescopic, the bullet passes the line if sight in two places, once quite close to the muzzel and again further out (point of zero), if this didn't happen the rifle couldn't be fired accurately.

The rifle in the video would need to be angled downwards, I don’t think it was (?) to be an accurate test, but gravity would act exactly the same on a .22 40 grain bullet, or any other caliber and weight of bullet, wheather it's travelling at speed or dropped.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Dawnrazor

[Dick Dastardly]

10 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

I can't watch youtube videos for some reason but I remember seeing that one on tv and thinking it's not accurate, a rifle barrel is fitted in the stock at an angle to fire the bullet at an upward angle so the bullet passes the line of the sights, open or telescopic, the bullet passes the line if sight in two places, once quite close to the muzzel and again further out (point of zero), if this didn't happen the rifle couldn't be fired accurately.

The rifle in the video would need to be angled downwards, I don’t think it was (?) to be an accurate test, but gravity would act exactly the same on a .22 40 grain bullet, or any other caliber and weight of bullet, wheather it's travelling at speed or dropped.

Yeah, but how close can they come down? 😉🤔

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Yeah, but how close can they come down? 😉🤔

What do you mean? How far would bullet travel before it hits the ground?

[Dick Dastardly]

5 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

What do you mean? How far would bullet travel before it hits the ground?

Nope. I think you quoted the wrong post earlier when you were talking about he video someone else posted. You quoted mine, which wasn't the video. 

Someone, i cant remember who, had said that a bullet fired straight up could land as far away as 2 miles from the gun it was fired from. I wanted to know how close it could land. 

[milky_26]

6 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Nope. I think you quoted the wrong post earlier when you were talking about he video someone else posted. You quoted mine, which wasn't the video. 

Someone, i cant remember who, had said that a bullet fired straight up could land as far away as 2 miles from the gun it was fired from. I wanted to know how close it could land. 

in theory you could fire a gun straight up into the air and if the conditions, shot, aim etc were perfect it would come back down and hit you and if you managed to hold the gun in the same place it might hit it. in reality you would not be able to do this.

[milky_26]

7 hours ago, FWJ said:

Thing I can never get my head around is if you fire a bullet (horizontally) and drop one at the same time, they both hit the ground at the same time.

in theory if you were high enough up (say parachuting) and were using a gun which fired the bullets very fast this would not happen due to the curvature of the earth. a quite unique position but in theory possible.

 

one other one, i vaguely remember doing the maths behind this years ago while at uni but due to the moon being smaller in diameter and having a smaller gravity than the earth it is possible if there are no hills etc in the way it would be possible to shoot yourself in the back of the head. the basics are you need a bullet travelling fast enough that the loss of height due to gravity is cancelled out by the curvature of the moon then the bullet would travel all the way around the moon and hit you at the same height you fired it from

[Dawnrazor]

7 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Nope. I think you quoted the wrong post earlier when you were talking about he video someone else posted. You quoted mine, which wasn't the video. 

Someone, i cant remember who, had said that a bullet fired straight up could land as far away as 2 miles from the gun it was fired from. I wanted to know how close it could land. 

Ah right, sorry!!

To answer your question, a bullet fired "straight up" couldn't possibly travel anything like 2 miles, it would go up and straight down again within feet of where it was fired, only wind would effect it and push it down wind.

A bullet fired at an angle would travel 2 miles, the .50 is accurate at over 1.5 km, competitions shooter use 6, 6.5 7mm and .30 calibers to shoot accurately at ranges of 1000 meters and more, a bigger heavier bullet like a 180 grain .30 caliber will ramain super sonic for much further than a lighter .22 for example. 

[Dawnrazor]

10 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

in theory if you were high enough up (say parachuting) and were using a gun which fired the bullets very fast this would not happen due to the curvature of the earth. a quite unique position but in theory possible.

 

 

The coriolis effect.

*edit* thinking about it, it isn't exactly 🤔 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Dawnrazor

[FWJ]

2 hours ago, milky_26 said:

in theory if you were high enough up (say parachuting) and were using a gun which fired the bullets very fast this would not happen due to the curvature of the earth. a quite unique position but in theory possible.

 

one other one, i vaguely remember doing the maths behind this years ago while at uni but due to the moon being smaller in diameter and having a smaller gravity than the earth it is possible if there are no hills etc in the way it would be possible to shoot yourself in the back of the head. the basics are you need a bullet travelling fast enough that the loss of height due to gravity is cancelled out by the curvature of the moon then the bullet would travel all the way around the moon and hit you at the same height you fired it from

Wouldn’t it be true on Earth too - if travelling faster to allow for the greater gravitational force?

 

(I should add - I’m s***e at maths….!)

[milky_26]

15 minutes ago, FWJ said:

Wouldn’t it be true on Earth too - if travelling faster to allow for the greater gravitational force?

 

(I should add - I’m s***e at maths….!)

yes it would be true on earth as well

[The White Cockade]

Occasional Tables 

What are they the rest of the time?

[Dawnrazor]

6 hours ago, The White Cockade said:

Occasional Tables 

What are they the rest of the time?

Or how deep would see really be if all the sponges weren't down there?

[The White Cockade]

3 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

Or how deep would see really be if all the sponges weren't down there?

😂

[Dick Dastardly]

Why is a solo in a piece of music called a solo when there are other instruments playing? 

[Greedy Jambo]

Here's a belter, 

 

Why do men have nipples?

[Dawnrazor]

6 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Here's a belter, 

 

Why do men have nipples?

So our wives and girlfriends can get on them😡

[Dick Dastardly]

15 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Here's a belter, 

 

Why do men have nipples?

I suppose they must start growing on the fetus or embryo or whatever before the sex is determined. I never studied biology so I'm probably way wrong but we've all got the same original bits, testicles would start out in the same way ovaries do, for example, but then once the sec is determined and hormones change then they develop in a different place and function. 

[cheetah]

17 hours ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Here's a belter, 

 

Why do men have nipples?

 

So you can tell whether you are coming or going.

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

On 04/09/2022 at 23:17, The White Cockade said:

Occasional Tables 

What are they the rest of the time?

Bits of wood 

[redjambo]

19 hours ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Here's a belter, 

 

Why do men have nipples?

 

In case they ever decide to go trans.

[JudyJudyJudy]

19 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

So our wives and girlfriends can get on them😡

I really don't understand them ( nipples i mean not women just in case there is an avalanche) and people who like " nipple play" .... yuck.  Call me frigid.

[redjambo]

19 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I suppose they must start growing on the fetus or embryo or whatever before the sex is determined. I never studied biology so I'm probably way wrong but we've all got the same original bits, testicles would start out in the same way ovaries do, for example, but then once the sec is determined and hormones change then they develop in a different place and function. 

 

Spot on, Dick.

 

https://www.livescience.com/32467-why-do-men-have-nipples.html

[Dick Dastardly]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

Spot on, Dick.

 

https://www.livescience.com/32467-why-do-men-have-nipples.html

**** me, I'm a genius

[JudyJudyJudy]

where do missing odd socks go ?

[Dick Dastardly]

2 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Einstein's slogan T-shirt at single's night.

That would make me the supreme ***** magnet

[jambo89]

1 hour ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

where do missing odd socks go ?

My theory is they go missing when they get seprated from each other in the laundry basket. This means only one sock gets cleaned in the washing machine, whilst the other gets left behind in the laundry basket. Once they've been taken out and dryed, there is no 'other' sock  to match it with and gets balled up with another odd sock. Then when the 'left behind sock' gets washed the same thing happens.

 

To stop this from happening, I half ball each pair of socks up at then end of the night before throwing them in the laundry. If you 'fully ball' your socks up they don't get properly washed or dryed. 

 

Edit: Read that back and it sounds a bit deranged but it does stop your socks from going missing. Same goes for any clothes items made from human skin!

Edited September 16, 2022 by jambo89

[JudyJudyJudy]

9 minutes ago, jambo89 said:

My theory is they go missing when they get seprated from each other in the laundry basket. This means only one sock gets cleaned in the washing machine, whilst the other gets left behind in the laundry basket. Once they've been taken out and dryed, there is no 'other' sock  to match it with and gets balled up with another odd sock. Then when the 'left behind sock' gets washed the same thing happens.

 

To stop this from happening, I half ball each pair of socks up at then end of the night before throwing them in the laundry. If you 'fully ball' your socks up they don't get properly washed or dryed. 

 

Edit: Read that back and it sounds a bit deranged but it does stop your socks from going missing. Same goes for any clothes items made from human skin!

That was rather a comprehensive reply to my query ! 😂 I tend to just Toss the off sock out ! 

[Greedy Jambo]

2 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

That was rather a comprehensive reply to my query ! 😂 I tend to just Toss the off sock out ! 

 

Aye, we all know about you tossing off into socks. 

[FWJ]

What would happen if the government (U.K. or Scottish) decided not to have a general election?   (They could come up with an excuse saying the country was in such a mess ‘now wasn’t the time’ or something)

[redjambo]

6 hours ago, FWJ said:

What would happen if the government (U.K. or Scottish) decided not to have a general election?   (They could come up with an excuse saying the country was in such a mess ‘now wasn’t the time’ or something)

 

On the UK level, the parliament automatically dissolves 5 years after it first met, according to the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4

 

If a government decided to change this situation then I imagine that it would have to vote through new legislation or an amendment to this Act, and I imagine that would be heavily opposed except in very extenuating circumstances.

[FWJ]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

On the UK level, the parliament automatically dissolves 5 years after it first met, according to the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4

 

If a government decided to change this situation then I imagine that it would have to vote through new legislation or an amendment to this Act, and I imagine that would be heavily opposed except in very extenuating circumstances.

But what if they didn’t have a vote, they just decided that they were going to stay in power (maybe with some excuse like collapsing economy / national emergency)?

We’ve always just relied on a government to ‘do the right thing’ about this.  What mechanism is there if they don’t?

Could someone (who?) order the police or the army to physically remove them?  Under whose authority?  Who would then order an election?

[il Duce McTarkin]

1 hour ago, FWJ said:

But what if they didn’t have a vote, they just decided that they were going to stay in power (maybe with some excuse like collapsing economy / national emergency)?

We’ve always just relied on a government to ‘do the right thing’ about this.  What mechanism is there if they don’t?

Could someone (who?) order the police or the army to physically remove them?  Under whose authority?  Who would then order an election?

 

Military coup.

 

Some toff knob with a handlebar moustache and a chest full of medals calling the shots.

 

Luvely.

[ri Alban]

4 hours ago, FWJ said:

But what if they didn’t have a vote, they just decided that they were going to stay in power (maybe with some excuse like collapsing economy / national emergency)?

We’ve always just relied on a government to ‘do the right thing’ about this.  What mechanism is there if they don’t?

Could someone (who?) order the police or the army to physically remove them?  Under whose authority?  Who would then order an election?

Charlie?

[Norm]

10 hours ago, FWJ said:

But what if they didn’t have a vote, they just decided that they were going to stay in power (maybe with some excuse like collapsing economy / national emergency)?

We’ve always just relied on a government to ‘do the right thing’ about this.  What mechanism is there if they don’t?

Could someone (who?) order the police or the army to physically remove them?  Under whose authority?  Who would then order an election?

Pretty sure Chuck has the power to do this. 

[superjack]

How come I always need a shite as soon as I've put toilet duck in the pan?