Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]

[Hugo a Gogo]

daytona365 said:

Why's this called 'The Lounge' and not The Sitting room ?

Pub theme, 'The Pie & Piston'

pubs don't have sitting rooms

[Silent1]

iambeowulf said:

Does the cannabis plant really contain property's that can fight cancer and many other illnesses.
Something about cannabinoids (THC is only one of them) the same as the body produces?

Also. Why does the U.S. Government own the only patent for experiments on cannabis which is why, that and it's illegal, the medical profession are only allowed to work on synthetic cannabis?

Is it all about the big Pharma companies who "can't make any money from cannabis" and the medical councils infiltration of those big Pharma?

Or is it all a load of st and just some nutty pot heads talking ste?

Cannabis likely helps alleviate symptoms of some diseases but it's highly unlikely that it cures any disease.
The medical profession can and do experiment on people using cannabis all the time, they just need to request a licence, they can use any illegal drug providing they can justify it.

"Big Pharma" (god I hate that saying, it's like mainstream media) do make money from cannabis, look up sativex, it's effectively a licence to print money.

On a related note, if you know a woman who gave birth in hospital using painkillers but not an epidural it's possible she was given heroin (diamorphine) as a painkiller, it's not uncommon.
Cocaine used to be used in eye drops to (iirc) constrict your pupils for some procedures.
You would be surprised at how many 'illegal' drugs are used in healthcare.

Edited by Silent1 on Monday 13th July 09:42

[Timmy40]

I've often wondered about the development of the aircraft Jet engine, Germany and the UK developed Jet engines at about the same time during WWII. Was this pure coincidence, the result of espionage, or was it that the technology to develop jets was already well understood before the war and so had been shared in civilian trade before the war had broken out?

[grumbledoak]

Timmy40 said:

I've often wondered about the development of the aircraft Jet engine, Germany and the UK developed Jet engines at about the same time during WWII. Was this pure coincidence, the result of espionage, or was it that the technology to develop jets was already well understood before the war and so had been shared in civilian trade before the war had broken out?

Both/all sides were working on nuclear bombs, too. The science all built on published past work.

[Einion Yrth]

Timmy40 said:

I've often wondered about the development of the aircraft Jet engine, Germany and the UK developed Jet engines at about the same time during WWII. Was this pure coincidence, the result of espionage, or was it that the technology to develop jets was already well understood before the war and so had been shared in civilian trade before the war had broken out?

The idea had been kicking around since the 20s. Whittle more or less got in first with a practical design.

[TheEnd]

Here's one related to the above.

Are nuclear bombs really as simple as they are made out, or is there a big conspiracy to hide details?

I'm sure I learned about nuclear bombs at school, you have a lump of something radioactive, but below the critical mass, and (in the gun type ones) you'd fire in the extra missing bit and the chain reaction would start.

Obviously there must be something missing if countries are still working trying to make their own nuclear weapons, and I expect they'd already have checked wikipedia.

[walm]

IIRC it's getting hold of the "something radioactive" that's hard.
Also the explosion needed to reduce the size of the material down so it goes critical isn't like sticking some C4 on the vault door and shouting "fire in the hold"!

[grumbledoak]

TheEnd said:

Are nuclear bombs really as simple as they are made out, or is there a big conspiracy to hide details?

Yes. The theory is as simple as it sounds.

In practice you have to get the raw materials, in sufficient quantity and purity, in precisely the correct layout to properly explode. And all without giving everyone cancer or blowing up at an inconvenient point.

[Impasse]

Why do Apple products have such difficulty with picture orientation when uploading images to various platforms?

[grumbledoak]

Impasse said:

Why do Apple products have such difficulty with picture orientation when uploading images to various platforms?

Instead of re-arranging the pixels to start at the top-left as they usually do, Apple just tack a note on the file. That only other Apple gear pays any attention to.

[BristolRich]

When Chinese text is translated (e.g. signage, printed document or on screen) why do they use the same (pseudo times new roman?) font?

[Cliftonite]

grumbledoak said:

Impasse said:

Why do Apple products have such difficulty with picture orientation when uploading images to various platforms?

Instead of re-arranging the pixels to start at the top-left as they usually do, Apple just tack a note on the file. That only other Apple gear pays any attention to.

Aka 'style over substance' ?

[Impasse]

grumbledoak said:

Instead of re-arranging the pixels to start at the top-left as they usually do, Apple just tack a note on the file. That only other Apple gear pays any attention to.

Hasn't anyone ever told them this is wrong and that to a non-Apple, non-tech savvy person that it makes their product look broken?

[grumbledoak]

Cliftonite said:

Aka 'style over substance' ?

Lazy coding? Saving the battery? Creating a barrier to interoperability? Who knows.

[ralphrj]

Timmy40 said:

I've often wondered about the development of the aircraft Jet engine, Germany and the UK developed Jet engines at about the same time during WWII. Was this pure coincidence, the result of espionage, or was it that the technology to develop jets was already well understood before the war and so had been shared in civilian trade before the war had broken out?

Frank Whittle came up with the idea of a jet engine in the late 1920s. He continued to work on the idea after joining the RAF and filed a patent on the design in 1930. However, he couldn't find anyone prepared to invest enough money to develop his idea further and when the patent needed to be renewed in 1935 he allowed it to expire. However, Whittle's patent had been published and was available to view in libraries including those in German Universities.

Hans von Ohain was a student at the University of Gottingen and came up with the idea of an engine without a propeller in 1933 and filed a patent in 1936. After the war he claimed never to have read Whittle's patent and his design was not identical but in later years made comments that suggested he was aware of Whittle's design.

During the war both sides developed their engines with Whittle being the first to build a working prototype but von Ohain's being the first design to fly.


Short answer, either complete coincidence or von Ohain legitimately picked up Whittle's expired patent and developed it further.

[marshalla]

Impasse said:

grumbledoak said:

Instead of re-arranging the pixels to start at the top-left as they usually do, Apple just tack a note on the file. That only other Apple gear pays any attention to.

Hasn't anyone ever told them this is wrong and that to a non-Apple, non-tech savvy person that it makes their product look broken?

Technically, Apple are doing it right by using the orientation flag in the EXIF data, it's quicker and is defined in the standard (one of the few times they choose to use an existing standard). Problems arise because a lot of software doesn't interpret or use this flag correctly and can leave it alone after the image has been manipulated.

[Timmy40]

ralphrj said:

Timmy40 said:

I've often wondered about the development of the aircraft Jet engine, Germany and the UK developed Jet engines at about the same time during WWII. Was this pure coincidence, the result of espionage, or was it that the technology to develop jets was already well understood before the war and so had been shared in civilian trade before the war had broken out?

Frank Whittle came up with the idea of a jet engine in the late 1920s. He continued to work on the idea after joining the RAF and filed a patent on the design in 1930. However, he couldn't find anyone prepared to invest enough money to develop his idea further and when the patent needed to be renewed in 1935 he allowed it to expire. However, Whittle's patent had been published and was available to view in libraries including those in German Universities.

Hans von Ohain was a student at the University of Gottingen and came up with the idea of an engine without a propeller in 1933 and filed a patent in 1936. After the war he claimed never to have read Whittle's patent and his design was not identical but in later years made comments that suggested he was aware of Whittle's design.

During the war both sides developed their engines with Whittle being the first to build a working prototype but von Ohain's being the first design to fly.


Short answer, either complete coincidence or von Ohain legitimately picked up Whittle's expired patent and developed it further.

Thanks. Fascinating. I've been reading about the first proto-type jet the Gloster G.40, it flew in 1941, didn't realise jets were developed that early in the war.

[Willy Nilly]

There are some people protesting at Heathrow. I assume they haven't had a wash for a few weeks and probably vote for left leaning political party's, is there any evidence of right leaning voters protesting about anything?

[Timmy40]

Willy Nilly said:

There are some people protesting at Heathrow. I assume they haven't had a wash for a few weeks and probably vote for left leaning political party's, is there any evidence of right leaning voters protesting about anything?

There was the countryside march through London about 10 years ago. I'm fairly sure they weren't the looney left.

[P-Jay]

Silent1 said:

iambeowulf said:

Does the cannabis plant really contain property's that can fight cancer and many other illnesses.
Something about cannabinoids (THC is only one of them) the same as the body produces?

Also. Why does the U.S. Government own the only patent for experiments on cannabis which is why, that and it's illegal, the medical profession are only allowed to work on synthetic cannabis?

Is it all about the big Pharma companies who "can't make any money from cannabis" and the medical councils infiltration of those big Pharma?

Or is it all a load of st and just some nutty pot heads talking ste?

Cannabis likely helps alleviate symptoms of some diseases but it's highly unlikely that it cures any disease.
The medical profession can and do experiment on people using cannabis all the time, they just need to request a licence, they can use any illegal drug providing they can justify it.

"Big Pharma" (god I hate that saying, it's like mainstream media) do make money from cannabis, look up sativex, it's effectively a licence to print money.

On a related note, if you know a woman who gave birth in hospital using painkillers but not an epidural it's possible she was given heroin (diamorphine) as a painkiller, it's not uncommon.
Cocaine used to be used in eye drops to (iirc) constrict your pupils for some procedures.
You would be surprised at how many 'illegal' drugs are used in healthcare.

Edited by Silent1 on Monday 13th July 09:42

There's a lot of guff written about Cannabis by it's fans - I'm 'Pro Weed' if that's a thing, there's little reason for it to be illegal, as long as it's users know what they're getting into, is a fantastic pain reliever and is a pretty good thing to make stuff out of, but I doubt it's the cure-all wonder drug some claim it is.

I remember a terrible TV programme called Willie's Wonky Chocolate - the main guy in that claimed all sort of magical properties for Cocoa, although he pronounced it in the most over-blown way possible, anyway - people tend to get carried away, and well weed heads often struggle with telling the difference between fact and imagination.

Anyway, I'd rather than used Cannabis rather than Diamorphinein labour, I'm sure (on the ward my Wife works on anyway) they only want to use diamorphine in end-of-life treatment, it's not very good for you.