Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 4]

[deadtom]

V8mate said:

glazbagun said:

When during battle a side "gives no quarter", what is this "quarter" they aren't giving? Are some adversaries given a quarter?

If you take enemy prisoner, you give them quarter (troops assemble in quarters).

So if you give no quarter, you behave without the mercy of taking them prisoner.

Further to this I think it's the case that the famous black skull and cross bones* flag flown by pirates was a sign that they would give quarter and were planning on taking your ship without a fight, if you'd let them. If they flew a red flag, that's when you knew you were in trouble as it meant they would give no quarter.

• other insignia are available and were often specific to a pirate crew/captain

[Ayahuasca]

deadtom said:

V8mate said:

glazbagun said:

When during battle a side "gives no quarter", what is this "quarter" they aren't giving? Are some adversaries given a quarter?

If you take enemy prisoner, you give them quarter (troops assemble in quarters).

So if you give no quarter, you behave without the mercy of taking them prisoner.

Further to this I think it's the case that the famous black skull and cross bones* flag flown by pirates was a sign that they would give quarter and were planning on taking your ship without a fight, if you'd let them. If they flew a red flag, that's when you knew you were in trouble as it meant they would give no quarter.

• other insignia are available and were often specific to a pirate crew/captain

Latin American armies used a musical tune known as the Cut Throat to signify there would be no quarter.

[Johnspex]

Frank7 said:

FiF said:

Well I read it, instantly understood the point you were making, it's a fair question.

I got the gist of what John meant, but I read it again a couple of times just to make sure, but in the interest of full disclosure, I’d be terrified of hinting that he got it wrong, I’ve deservedly caught a couple of his barbs in the past.

It' s easy when writing these things to think that because you kniow what it means then everyone else does. It would be easy in a face to face conversation but written it's adifferent story.

I was asking what those who say " would of " make of it when they see " would've".

[Frank7]

Johnspex said:

It' s easy when writing these things to think that because you kniow what it means then everyone else does. It would be easy in a face to face conversation but written it's adifferent story.

I was asking what those who say " would of " make of it when they see " would've".

A further illustration of “I know it, surely everyone must know it” was on a old “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” the other night.
A Scottish mother and son, the mother claiming to be a horse trainer, (not racehorses) were asked, complete this saying, “You should never change horses, a) while galloping, b) in mid stream, c) in the paddock d) while racing.”
I may not have got the options all as they were, but you get the gist.
I think that they only had 50/50 left, and after using that, they took the money as they didn’t know that it was “in mid stream.”
I was amazed that an educated woman, late 40s to early 50s didn’t know that one.

[borcy]

Johnspex said:

Frank7 said:

FiF said:

Well I read it, instantly understood the point you were making, it's a fair question.

I got the gist of what John meant, but I read it again a couple of times just to make sure, but in the interest of full disclosure, I’d be terrified of hinting that he got it wrong, I’ve deservedly caught a couple of his barbs in the past.

It' s easy when writing these things to think that because you kniow what it means then everyone else does. It would be easy in a face to face conversation but written it's adifferent story.

I was asking what those who say " would of " make of it when they see " would've".

They'd more likely think nothing at all about it, why would they?

[V8mate]

borcy said:

Johnspex said:

Frank7 said:

FiF said:

Well I read it, instantly understood the point you were making, it's a fair question.

I got the gist of what John meant, but I read it again a couple of times just to make sure, but in the interest of full disclosure, I’d be terrified of hinting that he got it wrong, I’ve deservedly caught a couple of his barbs in the past.

It' s easy when writing these things to think that because you kniow what it means then everyone else does. It would be easy in a face to face conversation but written it's adifferent story.

I was asking what those who say " would of " make of it when they see " would've".

They'd more likely think nothing at all about it, why would they?

They probably wouldn't see would've because they probably never read. The huge decline in reading must be a significant factor in people learning the language almost entirely from what they (think they) hear.

[borcy]

V8mate said:

borcy said:

Johnspex said:

Frank7 said:

FiF said:

Well I read it, instantly understood the point you were making, it's a fair question.

I got the gist of what John meant, but I read it again a couple of times just to make sure, but in the interest of full disclosure, I’d be terrified of hinting that he got it wrong, I’ve deservedly caught a couple of his barbs in the past.

It' s easy when writing these things to think that because you kniow what it means then everyone else does. It would be easy in a face to face conversation but written it's adifferent story.

I was asking what those who say " would of " make of it when they see " would've".

They'd more likely think nothing at all about it, why would they?

They probably wouldn't see would've because they probably never read. The huge decline in reading must be a significant factor in people learning the language almost entirely from what they (think they) hear.

Possibly, but I think quite a lot of people skim read and read what they think it says rather than what it says. I know I do it and can be quite bad for it at times.

[V8mate]

borcy said:

Possibly, but I think quite a lot of people skim read and read what they think it says rather than what it says. I know I do it and can be quite bad for it at times.

You wouldn't read would've and think 'oh that's would of' though, would you?

[borcy]

V8mate said:

borcy said:

Possibly, but I think quite a lot of people skim read and read what they think it says rather than what it says. I know I do it and can be quite bad for it at times.

You wouldn't read would've and think 'oh that's would of' though, would you?

I don't know tbh, maybe. Like I said my brain fills in a lot of what I read.

[talksthetorque]

Frank7 said:

A further illustration of “I know it, surely everyone must know it” was on a old “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” the other night.
A Scottish mother and son, the mother claiming to be a horse trainer, (not racehorses) were asked, complete this saying, “You should never change horses, a) while galloping, b) in mid stream, c) in the paddock d) while racing.”
I may not have got the options all as they were, but you get the gist.
I think that they only had 50/50 left, and after using that, they took the money as they didn’t know that it was “in mid stream.”
I was amazed that an educated woman, late 40s to early 50s didn’t know that one.

It’s not horses, it’s urinals, and the answer is B

[Frank7]

talksthetorque said:

Frank7 said:

A further illustration of “I know it, surely everyone must know it” was on a old “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” the other night.
A Scottish mother and son, the mother claiming to be a horse trainer, (not racehorses) were asked, complete this saying, “You should never change horses, a) while galloping, b) in mid stream, c) in the paddock d) while racing.”
I may not have got the options all as they were, but you get the gist.
I think that they only had 50/50 left, and after using that, they took the money as they didn’t know that it was “in mid stream.”
I was amazed that an educated woman, late 40s to early 50s didn’t know that one.

It’s not horses, it’s urinals, and the answer is B

Very good ttt, total rowlocks but urinals would make a good substitute for the real answer, horses.

[Johnspex]

V8mate said:

borcy said:

Johnspex said:

Frank7 said:

FiF said:

Well I read it, instantly understood the point you were making, it's a fair question.

I got the gist of what John meant, but I read it again a couple of times just to make sure, but in the interest of full disclosure, I’d be terrified of hinting that he got it wrong, I’ve deservedly caught a couple of his barbs in the past.

It' s easy when writing these things to think that because you kniow what it means then everyone else does. It would be easy in a face to face conversation but written it's adifferent story.

I was asking what those who say " would of " make of it when they see " would've".

They'd more likely think nothing at all about it, why would they?

They probably wouldn't see would've because they probably never read. The huge decline in reading must be a significant factor in people learning the language almost entirely from what they (think they) hear.

To be fair they read the misuse of 'of' and the correct use of 've on here. The former written by idiots like them and the latter by those who can read, write, and spell English correctly. I just wonder if they think that those in the " 've" camp are the stupid ones and that they are correct.

[Rostfritt]

GIYess said:

I may be due a parrot but have you not heard of this?? available in Tesco and other stores

I wonder if the content is exactly the same, but that one is steamed. I saw a thing about the baked bean factory and they are sealed in to the tin raw, then put through a huge steamer which they constantly move through. Makes them sanitary as anything bad in the tin is killed off. Maybe they just put a batch through the same machine?

[droopsnoot]

V8mate said:

borcy said:

Possibly, but I think quite a lot of people skim read and read what they think it says rather than what it says. I know I do it and can be quite bad for it at times.

You wouldn't read would've and think 'oh that's would of' though, would you?

In proper writing, though, surely it would be written as "would have", and not abbreviated?

[glenrobbo]

droopsnoot said:

V8mate said:

borcy said:

Possibly, but I think quite a lot of people skim read and read what they think it says rather than what it says. I know I do it and can be quite bad for it at times.

You wouldn't read would've and think 'oh that's would of' though, would you?

In proper writing, though, surely it would be written as "would have", and not abbreviated?

Shudda Wudda Cudda...

[Derek Smith]

I was asked by a grandchild, "Why does tea get colder when you blow on it?"

It's not conduction, convection or radiation, the three methods of losing heat I was taught at school. Is there a fourth method that was deliberately hidden from me?

I can see that you blow the heated air away and get it replaced by, well, heated air from your breath. It will interrupt the convection, as described at school, so slowing that process, albeit by a few seconds.

I tested it, just in case it was one of those accepted norms that don't work, and no such luck. It gets colder.

I was equal to the question. I said, "You blow the heat away." Not a lot gets past me. However, it would be nice to know the physics of the phenomenon.

Any ideas?

[glazbagun]

Derek Smith said:

I was asked by a grandchild, "Why does tea get colder when you blow on it?"

It's not conduction, convection or radiation, the three methods of losing heat I was taught at school. Is there a fourth method that was deliberately hidden from me?

I can see that you blow the heated air away and get it replaced by, well, heated air from your breath. It will interrupt the convection, as described at school, so slowing that process, albeit by a few seconds.

I tested it, just in case it was one of those accepted norms that don't work, and no such luck. It gets colder.

I was equal to the question. I said, "You blow the heat away." Not a lot gets past me. However, it would be nice to know the physics of the phenomenon.

Any ideas?

At a guess you've locally decreased the air pressure over your tea.

Low pressure air is both cooler and more dense than the surrounding air so will remove heat via conduction at a faster rate than the surrounding air would.

The same as blowing soup or fanning yourself on a hot day will cool you.

[Flibble]

Derek Smith said:

I was asked by a grandchild, "Why does tea get colder when you blow on it?"

It's not conduction, convection or radiation, the three methods of losing heat I was taught at school. Is there a fourth method that was deliberately hidden from me?

I can see that you blow the heated air away and get it replaced by, well, heated air from your breath. It will interrupt the convection, as described at school, so slowing that process, albeit by a few seconds.

I tested it, just in case it was one of those accepted norms that don't work, and no such luck. It gets colder.

I was equal to the question. I said, "You blow the heat away." Not a lot gets past me. However, it would be nice to know the physics of the phenomenon.

Any ideas?

It's forced air convection. You're blowing the warmer air just above the tea surface away and replacing it with cooler air (from your breath, unless your breath is circa 90C). Same effect as blowing air through a radiator with a fan.

glazbagun said:

At a guess you've locally decreased the air pressure over your tea.

Low pressure air is both cooler and more dense than the surrounding air so will remove heat via conduction at a faster rate than the surrounding air would.

The same as blowing soup or fanning yourself on a hot day will cool you.

Guess again, it's not really to do with pressure, you're just blowing the warmer moister air away thus allowing for increased cooling and better evaporation.

Also low pressure air is less dense than high pressure air (assuming the same temperature).

Edited by Flibble on Tuesday 3rd March 12:24

[P-Jay]

Rostfritt said:

I wonder if the content is exactly the same, but that one is steamed. I saw a thing about the baked bean factory and they are sealed in to the tin raw, then put through a huge steamer which they constantly move through. Makes them sanitary as anything bad in the tin is killed off. Maybe they just put a batch through the same machine?

As I understand it that how tinned foods 'work' contents go in raw (or partially cooked) then they're heated to kill of the bacteria in side. As nothing can get in the food remains safe to eat as long as the tin remains air tight. Tinned foods all have a use by date, but AFAIK technically it can last forever / until the tin rusts.

The formulation of the above might be different for production reasons, but it's probably just cooked longer.

[Johnspex]

glenrobbo said:

droopsnoot said:

V8mate said:

borcy said:

Possibly, but I think quite a lot of people skim read and read what they think it says rather than what it says. I know I do it and can be quite bad for it at times.

You wouldn't read would've and think 'oh that's would of' though, would you?

In proper writing, though, surely it would be written as "would have", and not abbreviated?

Shudda Wudda Cudda...








Not if you were writing in an informail manner, for instance, on here or if you were quoting speech
But no matter what, it is never would of.