Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 4]
Discussion
glenrobbo said:
SpeckledJim said:
Why does 'chipper' and 'chippy' mean sort of the opposite thing.
I get the link to chip on shoulders, but where does chipper come from?
Chipper? I get the link to chip on shoulders, but where does chipper come from?
Do you mean wood chipper, potato chipper or feeling chipper?
'Chippy' is just a place that sells fish 'n' chips.
If you say ‘he’s chippy’ that means he’s a bit passive aggressive, cold, a bit unpleasant.
If you say ‘he’s chipper’ that means he’s upbeat, friendly, open, generally a nice guy.
I'm wondering about the effect of temperature on batteries. My car's remote key takes a CR2032 mercury type cell. If the key's been in the ignition or on my belt loop in cold weather, the remote function doesn't work. If I put the keys in my trouser pocket for 5 minutes or so, it works.
We know that airliners sometimes won't serve nuts as dust might go through the recycled air and affect nut allergy sufferers but does the same apply on submarines? Obviously they have recycled air, are nuts banned, or do allergy sufferers not get to go on subs?
Do surface ships have the same problem if they are sealed for NBC warfare/drills?
Do surface ships have the same problem if they are sealed for NBC warfare/drills?
davhill said:
I'm wondering about the effect of temperature on batteries. My car's remote key takes a CR2032 mercury type cell. If the key's been in the ignition or on my belt loop in cold weather, the remote function doesn't work. If I put the keys in my trouser pocket for 5 minutes or so, it works.
Batteries that are marginal do seem to work better if warmed up - hence if your car battery is on its last legs, it might be perfectly fine during summer, but fail to start the car in cold weather. I have a phone and a camera that I leave in the car overnight, when I turn the phone on at the moment it reports a low battery, but once it's been left on for a bit in the (relatively) warm, it's showing about half-charge.Someone will know the physics.
Not worth starting a thread for, and something probably very quickly answered but not immediately apparent with Google...
My camper is now 40. The log book says date of first reg 1/1/79, but it's an import so the build plate on the door says 1978. So no doubt of the age.
When I next come to tax it, will it just be a zero fee? Or do I have to apply for tax exemption specifically, and will pay normal tax (£220 odd iirc) if I don't apply?
My camper is now 40. The log book says date of first reg 1/1/79, but it's an import so the build plate on the door says 1978. So no doubt of the age.
When I next come to tax it, will it just be a zero fee? Or do I have to apply for tax exemption specifically, and will pay normal tax (£220 odd iirc) if I don't apply?
kowalski655 said:
We know that airliners sometimes won't serve nuts as dust might go through the recycled air and affect nut allergy sufferers but does the same apply on submarines? Obviously they have recycled air, are nuts banned, or do allergy sufferers not get to go on subs?
Do surface ships have the same problem if they are sealed for NBC warfare/drills?
Surely the medical screening make you ineligible for submarine, if not all military service should you have an allergy that severe?Do surface ships have the same problem if they are sealed for NBC warfare/drills?
BTW, that not serving nuts because of airborne particles is utter b
ks. Aircraft have very effective HEPA filters that will eliminate airborne particulate matter like that. Most infections on aircraft happen due to surface contact and usually it's a surface in the terminal... And maybe one for the unpopular opinions thread... but feck it, if someone's allergy is so bad that a particle may kill them, they shouldn't fly anyway.Badda said:
captain_cynic said:
if someone's allergy is so bad that a particle may kill them, they shouldn't fly anyway.
Wow. Peanuts are really important to you when you fly aren't they?! In truth I just think people should take responsibility for themselves. If you have a serious medical condition that could result in anaphylactic shock just by being in the mere presence of something, you need to take responsibility for that condition, not forcing everyone else around you to do it for you.
However in the case of airlines and peanuts... Cost cutting was the real reasons. There are heap of these stories, in 1987 American Airlines saved US$40,000 by removing one olive from first class meals, Northwest saved US$500,000 by cutting limes into 16 pieces instead of 10. I have no issue with cost cutting as I can remember when air travel was prohibitively expensive but at least be honest about it.
captain_cynic said:
Yep...
In truth I just think people should take responsibility for themselves. If you have a serious medical condition that could result in anaphylactic shock just by being in the mere presence of something, you need to take responsibility for that condition, not forcing everyone else around you to do it for you.
However in the case of airlines and peanuts... Cost cutting was the real reasons. There are heap of these stories, in 1987 American Airlines saved US$40,000 by removing one olive from first class meals, Northwest saved US$500,000 by cutting limes into 16 pieces instead of 10. I have no issue with cost cutting as I can remember when air travel was prohibitively expensive but at least be honest about it.
Its both though, isn't it?In truth I just think people should take responsibility for themselves. If you have a serious medical condition that could result in anaphylactic shock just by being in the mere presence of something, you need to take responsibility for that condition, not forcing everyone else around you to do it for you.
However in the case of airlines and peanuts... Cost cutting was the real reasons. There are heap of these stories, in 1987 American Airlines saved US$40,000 by removing one olive from first class meals, Northwest saved US$500,000 by cutting limes into 16 pieces instead of 10. I have no issue with cost cutting as I can remember when air travel was prohibitively expensive but at least be honest about it.
The whole "cost cutting" argument is the reason that some airlines stopped giving out peanuts for free, but the allergies of someone on board are the reason they won't sell them at all. Arguably, asking an airline not to serve peanuts IS taking responsibility for it, the airline of course do have the choice to say "No, we'll still do it and you can take your chances" etc.
And peanuts are only really popular on board because they have so much salt on them that you can still taste them, isn't it?
Plus those tired old examples are probably still being used in industry today where you pay money to go to a seminar to learn how to "maximise profit" - however as I haven't been on one so I don't know the correct BS Bingo language they'd use.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Another of those "Have no clue of other people, didn't even read the post and am making it up" delusional.Actually read my post, before commenting on it.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It is not the responsibility of everyone else to ensure that absolutely no harm comes to anyone else. At some point we have to say, this is your responsibility to ensure that it doesn't kill you. Extreme reactions that are stupidly rare in society is one of these times. We cannot cocoon society so that no harm comes to anyone, anywhere. That will, ironically, do more harm than good.
Really, if you have to inconvenience 300+ people, it's time to admit that the activity is not for you.
Shakermaker said:
Its both though, isn't it?
The whole "cost cutting" argument is the reason that some airlines stopped giving out peanuts for free, but the allergies of someone on board are the reason they won't sell them at all. Arguably, asking an airline not to serve peanuts IS taking responsibility for it, the airline of course do have the choice to say "No, we'll still do it and you can take your chances" etc.
I don't think so. Because:The whole "cost cutting" argument is the reason that some airlines stopped giving out peanuts for free, but the allergies of someone on board are the reason they won't sell them at all. Arguably, asking an airline not to serve peanuts IS taking responsibility for it, the airline of course do have the choice to say "No, we'll still do it and you can take your chances" etc.
Shakermaker said:
And peanuts are only really popular on board because they have so much salt on them that you can still taste them, isn't it?
A very excellent point I didn't think of until you suggested it... But some airlines serve salted pretzels or mini crisps. I'm not sure what Air France served me on my flight to Panama, but they weren't nuts and were quite nice (something circular with a waffle weave imprint). So there are dozen of nut-free replacements if it were just about the nut allergy.I think the snacks are used mainly to keep people seated and distracted during the the early part of the flight (that's just my hypothesis, I can offer no evidence).
Also peanuts are not actually a nut, they're a legume. So we can't really say that's a nut allergy. Pedantic, I know.
Shakermaker said:
Plus those tired old examples are probably still being used in industry today where you pay money to go to a seminar to learn how to "maximise profit" - however as I haven't been on one so I don't know the correct BS Bingo language they'd use.
I haven't got an issue with airlines trying minimise costs, When I first started flying a flight to the next capital city cost more than as a non-sale trans-Atlantic ticket costs now. I know I've benefited from this immensely. I just would like them to be honest about it. Ryanair, as I spit it's name, is at least honest about being cheap and trying to extract the pennies. Someone like BA under Alex Cruz has been doing the same thing, but still pretends to be a full service airline. BTW, I won't fly either of them.
captain_cynic said:
If you have a serious medical condition that could result in anaphylactic shock just by being in the mere presence of something, you need to take responsibility for that condition, not forcing everyone else around you to do it for you.
You're a bit of a child really aren't you? Of course they take responsibility, of course they carry epipens, of course they're entitled to still travel. Of course this relies on adults having a little humility and accepting we're all different and some of us have conditions that make life a little harder. Of course you won't understand because you're selfish and don't agree with being thoughtful to strangers because why should you?
Child.
Badda said:
captain_cynic said:
If you have a serious medical condition that could result in anaphylactic shock just by being in the mere presence of something, you need to take responsibility for that condition, not forcing everyone else around you to do it for you.
You're a bit of a child really aren't you? Of course they take responsibility, of course they carry epipens, of course they're entitled to still travel. Of course this relies on adults having a little humility and accepting we're all different and some of us have conditions that make life a little harder. Of course you won't understand because you're selfish and don't agree with being thoughtful to strangers because why should you?
Child.
We (MR) deal with loads of casualties that have allergies but haven't bothered to bring an EpiPen with them, Asthmatics without inhalers, Diabetics without insulin/food, Angina sufferers without GTN spray etc...
Lots of people out there neglecting their selfcare responsibilities impacting on others both physically and mentally.
Lots that do and look after themselves too.
Lots of people out there neglecting their selfcare responsibilities impacting on others both physically and mentally.
Lots that do and look after themselves too.
How do people who have such a serious allergy that they can be killed by a peanut at 30 paces find out about it? Is it a less severe reaction initially that gets worse after its happened once or twice, or do they have a less severe reaction to something else and then get tested for other allergies and find they've been incredibly lucky to have not been exposed to peanuts at some point?
RizzoTheRat said:
How do people who have such a serious allergy that they can be killed by a peanut at 30 paces find out about it? Is it a less severe reaction initially that gets worse after its happened once or twice, or do they have a less severe reaction to something else and then get tested for other allergies and find they've been incredibly lucky to have not been exposed to peanuts at some point?
The first mainly. Early reactions won't be as severe but once you've been exposed to the antigen then your body reacts viciously on future occasions. droopsnoot said:
Batteries that are marginal do seem to work better if warmed up - hence if your car battery is on its last legs, it might be perfectly fine during summer, but fail to start the car in cold weather. I have a phone and a camera that I leave in the car overnight, when I turn the phone on at the moment it reports a low battery, but once it's been left on for a bit in the (relatively) warm, it's showing about half-charge.
Someone will know the physics.
The irony is that both keys were doing it so I gave each a new battery, Duracell no less. Now they are both unreliable when cold.Someone will know the physics.
Do tac switches go inefficient when cold. Or it could be the rubbery key bodies?
RizzoTheRat said:
How do people who have such a serious allergy that they can be killed by a peanut at 30 paces find out about it? Is it a less severe reaction initially that gets worse after its happened once or twice, or do they have a less severe reaction to something else and then get tested for other allergies and find they've been incredibly lucky to have not been exposed to peanuts at some point?
The hard way, I imagine.I'm allergic to penicillin. The first my parents know of this was when I was given some for something or other as a nipper and ended up in hospital swelled up like Stewie in Family Guy when he got stung by a mosquito.
Actually...while I'm here and on that subject.....
I was recently made aware that those allergic to penicillin should avoid blue cheeses like stilton. a) is this true and b) if it is and given I can knock back industrial quantities of Stilton given half the chance and a decent Port......has my allergy to penicillin gone away?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff