Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 5]
Discussion
Zumbruk said:
The root of it? A whole lifetime of having something in which, at best, you are completely disinterested, effectively jammed down your throat at every turn; featured on the broadcast media, dominating the print media, discussed at interminably boring length in the office/pub/virtually every other social occasion; "Did you watch the game?", "No. What game?", followed by expressions of astonishment that you cannot possibly be possessed of a gentleman's sausage and yet be utterly uninterested in sport. After a few years, it becomes rather wearing. I'm well into retirement and have never seen a whole football match on the TV, I've never been to a game, and hope to go to my grave in the same state. And yet TV schedules were regularly disrupted by something only a minority of the population is interested in. Fortunately, in these days of streaming, it's much easier to avoid.
Think of a subject in which you have no interest whatever, and then imagine it comes up at every turn. Wouldn't your disinterest turn to antipathy eventually? I was watching the BBC 6pm news the other night and one of the features, not even a sports section, was about "The Lionesses". I have no idea who these people are, or what they have done, indeed I had to look up from my dinner to see what kind of sport they play, and yet a whole section of the main evening news was devoted to them.
And don't even get me started on the racism and the behaviour of the fans.
Yes, but apart from that, is there anything you don't like about it?Think of a subject in which you have no interest whatever, and then imagine it comes up at every turn. Wouldn't your disinterest turn to antipathy eventually? I was watching the BBC 6pm news the other night and one of the features, not even a sports section, was about "The Lionesses". I have no idea who these people are, or what they have done, indeed I had to look up from my dinner to see what kind of sport they play, and yet a whole section of the main evening news was devoted to them.
And don't even get me started on the racism and the behaviour of the fans.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Benni said:
Why is the range of a car remote lock increasing if the transmitter (key) is held to the head ?
It interacts with the mind-control Nanites that were introduced with your Covid-19 vaccinations. Something to do with Bill Gates or something. Apparently. What is the point of being a 33rd degree mason if you are just going to spaff our secrets all over the internet?
You're getting black-balled in the morning.
SteveStrange said:
BigBen said:
Turtle Shed said:
What did they do to aeroplanes to make it safe to use mobile phones when flying?
The chief problem was not the phones interfering with aircraft systems but the handsets interfering with the network on the ground. Phone networks are not designed to handle cell handover of 200 handsets all travelling at 400 mph. The solution was a device called a noise floor lifter which blocked signal to / from the ground network and routed call traffic to an onboard base station which then connects via a satllite link. This equipment wasn't on most aircraft now it is on a lot of them.
The same problem does not apply to WiFi hence flight mode + WiFi is OK
Ben
From an early Mythbuster episode:
"The ban on cell phones on aircraft is designed to force passengers to use the expensive in-flight phones".
Busted
It was found that cell phone signals, specifically those in the 800-900 MHz range, did intefere with unshielded cockpit instrumentation. Because older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected, and because of the possible problems that may arise by having many airborne cell phones “seeing” multiple cell phone towers, the FCC (via enforcement through the FAA) still deems it best to err on the safe side and prohibit the use of cell phones while airborne.
"The ban on cell phones on aircraft is designed to force passengers to use the expensive in-flight phones".
Busted
It was found that cell phone signals, specifically those in the 800-900 MHz range, did intefere with unshielded cockpit instrumentation. Because older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected, and because of the possible problems that may arise by having many airborne cell phones “seeing” multiple cell phone towers, the FCC (via enforcement through the FAA) still deems it best to err on the safe side and prohibit the use of cell phones while airborne.
Turtle Shed said:
SteveStrange said:
BigBen said:
Turtle Shed said:
What did they do to aeroplanes to make it safe to use mobile phones when flying?
The chief problem was not the phones interfering with aircraft systems but the handsets interfering with the network on the ground. Phone networks are not designed to handle cell handover of 200 handsets all travelling at 400 mph. The solution was a device called a noise floor lifter which blocked signal to / from the ground network and routed call traffic to an onboard base station which then connects via a satllite link. This equipment wasn't on most aircraft now it is on a lot of them.
The same problem does not apply to WiFi hence flight mode + WiFi is OK
Ben
Waitforme said:
When is it ok for a musician to cover another track ?
Do they have to have the original or current owner of the track’s permission ?
Of course they do Do they have to have the original or current owner of the track’s permission ?
Waitforme said:
There have been court cases in recent years about songs sounding like another artist’s work , never mind a cover version.
Because nobody in their right mind would make an unauthorised cover. Well, maybe on YouTube I guess but it would be a slam-dunk takedown.
A quick google revealed this ….
https://syncsongwriter.com/blog/legally-releasing-...
…… “ A common misconception in the music industry is that you need to receive permission from the original composer in order to record a cover version of their song. However, US copyright law makes it much easier than that for artists wishing to cover a piece of music.……”
https://syncsongwriter.com/blog/legally-releasing-...
…… “ A common misconception in the music industry is that you need to receive permission from the original composer in order to record a cover version of their song. However, US copyright law makes it much easier than that for artists wishing to cover a piece of music.……”
Waitforme said:
When politicians visit hospitals, why do they roll their sleeves up and tuck their ties in ?
It's an infection control measure, which although not really relevant to some time-serving lard-assed bureaucrat visiting a hospital in order to assist their climb up the greasy pole, their aides have suggested the optics of flouting it are poor.I worked for many years on a Blood Service mobile collection team. One time we had an issue of a new uniform. The girls (I shall call them that) were content with what they got, but the men got a short sleeved white shirt with epaulettes and a clip on waist length tie. I suppose less than 10% of the crews were male, and I would bet that whoever procured this stuff for us was female, for there was no hint of an appreciation of what this tie meant for us while at work.
Fair enough, it was of the clip on type, and thus not a grab or strangulation risk, but every time we leant forward to do the deed with the needle, the damn tie would dangle right in the critical area, presenting problems of both hygiene and visibility. We ended up having to either throw it across our shoulder or tuck it into our shirt somewhere just south of the second button.
As I was (as a union rep and steward) sitting on both local and national safety committees, I brought the matter up there, and suggested we might have a natty little clip on bow tie instead. I know such things exist because my mum bought me one when I was five to go to family weddings.
They all laughed at me and I was very hurt.
So, still rankled by this rejection of a sensible alternative, I suggest all politicians visiting hospitals are issued with clip on bow ties - preferably revolving ones to suit their clown status.
Fair enough, it was of the clip on type, and thus not a grab or strangulation risk, but every time we leant forward to do the deed with the needle, the damn tie would dangle right in the critical area, presenting problems of both hygiene and visibility. We ended up having to either throw it across our shoulder or tuck it into our shirt somewhere just south of the second button.
As I was (as a union rep and steward) sitting on both local and national safety committees, I brought the matter up there, and suggested we might have a natty little clip on bow tie instead. I know such things exist because my mum bought me one when I was five to go to family weddings.
They all laughed at me and I was very hurt.
So, still rankled by this rejection of a sensible alternative, I suggest all politicians visiting hospitals are issued with clip on bow ties - preferably revolving ones to suit their clown status.
Waitforme said:
A quick google revealed this ….
https://syncsongwriter.com/blog/legally-releasing-...
…… “ A common misconception in the music industry is that you need to receive permission from the original composer in order to record a cover version of their song. However, US copyright law makes it much easier than that for artists wishing to cover a piece of music.……”
Maybe the reason that Springsteen found it hard to stop certain politicians https://syncsongwriter.com/blog/legally-releasing-...
…… “ A common misconception in the music industry is that you need to receive permission from the original composer in order to record a cover version of their song. However, US copyright law makes it much easier than that for artists wishing to cover a piece of music.……”
using Born In The USA at their rallies.
Must be uncommon for an artist to refuse permission for a cover version thus turning down
income from the royalties.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff