Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Pop Quiz Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pop Quiz

    Let's see how this thread does. Might be kind of fun.

    Which country has the most time zones?

    Italy, Canada, USA, France, or Russia?

  • #2
    Russia - by a long shot, according to my world globe.

    Comment


  • #3
    France is #1 (for this list of choices) with 11 time zones. This includes France plus all it's overseas territories and islands both inhabited and uninhabited.

    Comment


    • ombugge
      ombugge commented
      Editing a comment
      That was an interesting "pinprick". I'm surprise that it is French overseas territory at all. That was new knowledge for me.

      As for Bouvetoya I don't know which time zone is used, (if any) Geographically it belongs to Zone UTC-1, as does Jan Mayen, just barely.
      The west coast of Norway belong in the UTC zone. Eastern part of Finnmark is in Zone UTC +2. (They are using "correct" time during the summer at least) Norway thus have the "right" to use 4 time zones, but mainland Norway only use two (UTC +1 in winter and UTC+2 in summer)

    • yvneac
      yvneac commented
      Editing a comment
      Bouvet:
      In a report about HSBC affair (tax evasion) French TV discovered that an account was opened in this bank from the inhabited Bouvet island!
      Rich people likes being alone....

    • ombugge
      ombugge commented
      Editing a comment
      It does have a designated Time Zone; UTC +1, or Norwgian winter time.
      It also has a ISO Code; BV and a Internet Domain Code: .bv : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.bv

      Here is a link to the wiki page for Bouvet Island: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouvet_Island

  • #4
    TITANIC...Some say that the Titanic would have survived had she hit the iceberg head on. Do you agree?

    Comment


    • #5
      I have read this article: http://www.rmstitanicremembered.com/?page_id=282
      But is it factual or just another theory, backed by numbers that is not necessarily correct, or logical?

      The impact forces from hitting another vessel, or an object at her maximum speed would have been calculated into the design of her collision bulkheads and the fixing of major machinery, such as boilers etc. Furniture and fittings is another matter, but they do not cause a vessel to sink.

      Yes she was a riveted ship, but brand new. Still, some rivets are likely to have popped, which MAY have caused some plate seams to open up in the second and possibly third compartment from the bow. Flooding of two,or even three compartments would not have caused her to sink, although the people sleeping in the crew compartments between bulkhead 1 -2 and below waterline would likely have been killed.

      The opposite would be the case if the iceberg had an overhang above waterline, but that was not the case as - from the records - an underwater protrusion cut her open below waterline and along Stbd. side. This was possible as the full force of the collision had to be absorbed by a relative small part of her hull structure.

      If bow-on, the forces would be spread along the hull sides, bottom and deck plates. It is not comparable to a motorcar, which does not have a "Box" configuration to give it strength, only a frame.

      It is assumed that hitting the Iceberg was like hitting a flat and immovable concrete wall. Northern icebergs are seldom flat sided and, since they are afloat, they are movable. (In fact multi-million tonnes Icebergs are being towed to avoid collisions with Offshore structures)
      If the Titanic struck a underwater protrusion of the iceberg first, the impact would have caused the bow section to crumble up to at least the first collision bulkhead, thus absorbing some of the impact force before the upper part of the bow hit the iceberg and v.v.

      I disagree with the theory and figures used as in this article. Too theoretical.

      In fact I think the Costa Concordia would have stayed afloat if it had hit the rocks flat on. If she had not been turned by her "heroic" Captain, thus strike an underwater rock with her port quarter. She would have crumbled her bulbous and underwater bow structure and people would have got hurt from flying furniture and falls, but she would stay upright and aground, not sinking, even if the Captain decided to free her from the rock without checking extent of damages and flooding.

      The same may be said for the Titanic, when the Chief Officer tried to avoid the iceberg by turning to Port. The result was that she was cut open over a large length of her side, causing severe flooding, rather than flooding a few Fwrd. compartment.
      But this was at a different time, with far less instruments to aid you and far less knowledge of what was around you than what was available to Capt. Schettino.

      Comment


      • nari
        nari commented
        Editing a comment
        He should be, having spent nearly all his life on ketches and schooners around New Guinea and the Solomons with and without his brother. All self taught as there weren't many around with the time or inclination to teach young fellows the ropes. What made it even more exciting (to him) was that most of the area was not charted....

      • ombugge
        ombugge commented
        Editing a comment
        Yes I remember an atoll somewhere to the East of New Ireland which had a remark on the chart which said; "Reported to lay 14 miles NW in 1935", or something to that effect. Even the coastline on either side of Gulf of Carpentaria was not accurately charted before sometime in the mid-1970s.

      • nari
        nari commented
        Editing a comment
        I remember he wrote an angry letter to the Admiralty chart company, pointing out that the chart of the Solomon Sea ( think it was off New Britain) was inaccurate and some large reef was NOT where it was marked and he indicated where it actually was. He never got any response.

    • #6
      I kind of agree with http://www.rmstitanicremembered.com/?page_id=282 except the author does not include that if the crew of the Titanic decided to hit the iceberg head on, they would have also tried to slow the ship down resulting in much less impact than his calculations.

      Comment


      • ombugge
        ombugge commented
        Editing a comment
        Proceeding at 22 kts. in fog in an area with iceberg and other shipping may have been regarded as reckless. It is against good seamanship, even today. At that time a ship of this size and type could not easily be slowed down on short notice. To change from "Sea Speed" to "Maneuver Speed" would require the Engineers to be given notice in order to prepare for such a change. To go astern would have been a major operation.
        Even today the Duty Officer on the bridge cannot just pull the throttle as he pleases, although the control is from the bridge.
        To go from Ahead to Astern on a large ship with low RPM engine requires the engine to be stopped and re-started in revers. No Reverse Gear or Variable Pitch Propellers on VLCC etc.

    • #7
      Did you know...

      Watching a video of a cute animal can reduce heart rate and blood pressure in under a minute.

      Comment


      • yvneac
        yvneac commented
        Editing a comment
        Fleas,lices,scorpions,piraranhas,tax collectors........

      • wherrygirl
        wherrygirl commented
        Editing a comment
        Yves - you have a "thing" about tax collectors?

      • yvneac
        yvneac commented
        Editing a comment
        Not at all.I DO LOVE pay taxes!.....
        .....when it is so politely asked.

    • #8
      Yes, and much has been written about the real therapeutic value of having a pet in the house. The dependance of one upon the other can make a big difference to a person on their own or whose health is somewhat impaired.
      Ivy

      "To thine own self be true.......
      Thou canst not then be false to any man."

      Comment


      • #9
        Here's another trick of Doctor Dementia to test your skills...

        Can you meet this challenge?

        We've seen this with the letters out of order, but this is the first time we've seen it with numbers.

        Good example of a Brain Study: If you can read this OUT LOUD you have a strong mind.



        And better than that: Alzheimer's is a long long, way down the road before it ever gets anywhere near you.

        7H15 M3554G3

        53RV35 7O PR0V3

        H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N

        D0 4M4Z1NG 7H1NG5!

        1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5!

        1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG

        17 WA5 H4RD BU7

        N0W, 0N 7H15 LIN3

        Y0UR M1ND 1S


        R34D1NG 17 4U70M471C4LLY

        W17H0U7 3V3N

        7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17,


        B3 PROUD! 0NLY

        C3R741N P30PL3 C4N

        R3AD 7H15!


        PL3453.



        If you can raed this, you have a sgtrane mnid, too.

        Can you raed this? Olny 55 people out of 100 can.

        I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a pboerlm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!











        Comment


        • #10
          Oh geart! Ctialenry our banris are cplbaae of smoe mreloalvulsy cmiceloptad ftaes. Out of its database of words with the same first and last letters it must find that which fits the context of the passage - and quickly.
          Actually, it looks much like my "typing" efforts when on the laptop! If onlty brain, knoeing what I'm goinf to say, wotul direct my finbgers to the correct key! Or to put it another way, slowly, If only brain, knowing what I'm going to say, would direct my fingers to the correct key! Correcting my mess takes longer than writing it in the first place.
          Heigh-ho!
          Ivy

          "To thine own self be true.......
          Thou canst not then be false to any man."

          Comment


          • #11
            Why does the abbreviation 'Mrs.' have an 'R' when the full word 'missus' is R-less?

            Comment


            • #12
              "Mrs." is an abbreviation of the very old form of address "Mistress" which once applied to a married woman, whereas nowadays it means the bit on the side of a man who is already married to someone else. I'm all for ditching it, anyway - I'm my own person, not an appendage of a man, though I have no real problem with taking his surname as it makes life a bit simpler. But I do abhor the newish term of "Ms." When it first appeared no-one really knew how to pronounce it, but it seems to have settled into a very ugly sound of "Mzzzzzz". Why do we need all these prefixes, anyway? Just the actual name is sufficient to ID someone!
              Ivy

              "To thine own self be true.......
              Thou canst not then be false to any man."

              Comment


              • #13
                Why do we need all these prefixes, anyway? Just the actual name is sufficient to ID someone!
                I do agree, but: It's rather nice to have those abbreviations every now and then, maybe not inside each country, but across borders.
                Does everyone know at once if in example Svein is a male or a female name outside Norway? Or Sam for that matter.
                I would feel more secure in contacting someone by mail or letter for the first time if I knew I was contacting a male or a female (stupid to use she/her in a letter to a he/him)

                Just a thought.
                "IF GOD COULD MAKE ANGELS...., WHY IN HELL MAKE MAN?"

                Comment


                • #14
                  Originally posted by Sterkoder View Post
                  I would feel more secure in contacting someone by mail or letter for the first time if I knew I was contacting a male or a female (stupid to use she/her in a letter to a he/him)Just a thought.
                  Well, I don't think that is much of a problem really, is it? I mean, do you address a stranger differently in a letter depending on whether they are man or woman? If you are writing to a company you have no idea who will be reading it, male or female. Until, of course, such time as you know the individual well enough to use their forename, then yes, you'd probably use a different approach! Further, you wouldn't use "she/he" while addressing that person but "you". And thank goodness English uses an all-embracing "you" when referring directly to a person, regardless of gender, status or number for I would be horribly embarassed if I mistakenly used a familiar "you" instead of the more formal version that I should have used. Also, if our acquaintanceship developed, I would never know at what point I dare use the familiar version. Best leave it to them.

                  Does everyone know at once if in example Svein is a male or a female name outside Norway?
                  Oh, but isn't it fun finding out?
                  Ivy

                  "To thine own self be true.......
                  Thou canst not then be false to any man."

                  Comment


                  • nari
                    nari commented
                    Editing a comment
                    It can be a bit problematic but does anyone really mind if a name is used to identify gender wrongly? In the case of the name Svein, I knew it was masculine and Norwegian long before I became interested in Norway - but maybe that was a fluke. I agree with Ivy that the problematic Ms vs Mrs can be annoying. I avoid either as far as I can, but various documents demand a "title". To me that is rather archaic....

                  • Sterkoder
                    Sterkoder commented
                    Editing a comment
                    It's not THE problem of the world, no.
                    Donald Trump is a more serious problem for us all.... ;-)

                • #15
                  No, it does not matter and I don't write in a different way wether it's a male or a female at the receiving end.
                  But many years ago, before the internet and mobile phone, when letters or "snailmail" was the only option, on two occations I had the responsibility in our local aeroclub to contact air aircraft owners to try to get them to our airshows.
                  That also ment I had to contact owners in UK, and there was a few with names that could work for both male and female. NOT that it had anything to say, NOT that it was important if the contact person was a woman or a man.
                  BUT, I felt more comfortable knowing if I wrote to a male or a female. Don't know any other way to explain it.
                  Now it's no problem, as we have the internet and can Google people....
                  I suppose everyone understand what I mean
                  Last edited by Sterkoder; 3 weeks ago.
                  "IF GOD COULD MAKE ANGELS...., WHY IN HELL MAKE MAN?"

                  Comment


                  • wherrygirl
                    wherrygirl commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Yes, I do know exactly what you mean, Svein. It's funny, but I admit we do seem more comfortable if we know the gender of the person we are writing/mailing to. Somehow we have an inbuilt difference in the way we approach them. Like Nari, I knew that Svein was a male name and I would jokingly pull your leg in quite a different way from how I would with Nari, for example.
                    Anyway, as Yves would remark - vive la difference!
                    And apologies for starting off a big OT stream.

                  • yvneac
                    yvneac commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Vive la différence, yes Ivy, but sometimes it's easier without.
                    For instance, I agree with you: the Enlish YOU is greatly more convenient than the French TU and VOUS.

                  • wherrygirl
                    wherrygirl commented
                    Editing a comment
                    The few Latin and Germanic languages I recognise (that doesn't mean ability to speak but most of us have a smattering of words that we can rustle up on rare occasions) all seem to have this sharp division between the type of 2nd person pronoun to use when addressing someone. I'm wondering at what point and why English settled on just the one "you". Not the only time we have decided to go our own way, of course!!!
                Working...
                X