Ooh, that'll be my learning for the day.Lesley Hines wrote:Only 9-ball, never 8-ball. Jumping balls is a foul in 8-ball.Ian Volante wrote:Then again, in pool you're allowed jump shots, so can technically be said to never be unable to legally play a shot.
Questions you've always wanted answered
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I'm struggling to think of any way in which it could be physically impossible to play a legal shot.Matt Morrison wrote:where you leave the table to the other player in such a way as it's absolutely physically entirely impossible to play a legal shot
- Lesley Hines
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
- Location: Worcester
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
This actually happened to my hb on Monday: the cue ball ended up jammed into the jaws of a pocket, so that he couldn't move it without the opponent's ball dropping into the pocket. He tells me everyone crowded round the table to admire such an unusual situation though. There's one. Another, far more common, is to have the cue ball completely obscured, say in the jaws, by balls it's not legal to hit: e.g. 2 colours when someone coming to the table would be a on a red, or even 2 reds when they're on a colour, or against a cushion mickey-mouse stylie etc. This often happens by dint of a snooker that's ended up snugger than intended, but either way, in snooker it's a free ball, in 8-ball it's a re-rack.Charlie Reams wrote:I'm struggling to think of any way in which it could be physically impossible to play a legal shot.Matt Morrison wrote:where you leave the table to the other player in such a way as it's absolutely physically entirely impossible to play a legal shot
Lowering the averages since 2009
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I'm not sure I understand the first situation. The second one sounds like you could hit another ball by jumping the white over another ball. Is that legal in pool?Lesley Hines wrote:This actually happened to my hb on Monday: the cue ball ended up jammed into the jaws of a pocket, so that he couldn't move it without the opponent's ball dropping into the pocket. He tells me everyone crowded round the table to admire such an unusual situation though. There's one. Another, far more common, is to have the cue ball completely obscured, say in the jaws, by balls it's not legal to hit: e.g. 2 colours when someone coming to the table would be a on a red, or even 2 reds when they're on a colour, or against a cushion mickey-mouse stylie etc. This often happens by dint of a snooker that's ended up snugger than intended, but either way, in snooker it's a free ball, in 8-ball it's a re-rack.Charlie Reams wrote:I'm struggling to think of any way in which it could be physically impossible to play a legal shot.Matt Morrison wrote:where you leave the table to the other player in such a way as it's absolutely physically entirely impossible to play a legal shot
- Lesley Hines
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
- Location: Worcester
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Not 8-ball, no It wouldn't work if they were nearly touching, either. You need space to jump balls.Charlie Reams wrote:I'm not sure I understand the first situation. The second one sounds like you could hit another ball by jumping the white over another ball. Is that legal in pool?
The first one was sort of \OO/, like that. It was most strange, anyway. The balls were touching so it wasn't possible to move the white without the other ball dropping in.
Lowering the averages since 2009
- Brian Moore
- Devotee
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
- Location: Exeter
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Are we less sensitive to the smell of our own shit & farts than other people's? If yes, how can this be, given that the smell depends on what we've eaten?
And how come dogs can sniff shit so closely when we're told that their sense of smell if 500 times more sensitive than humans'?
And how come dogs can sniff shit so closely when we're told that their sense of smell if 500 times more sensitive than humans'?
- Lesley Hines
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
- Location: Worcester
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I don't know a definitive answer (and can't be arsed to google it) but it's very definitely subjective. With your own child, their nappies aren't spectacularly offensive to the mother (haha - usually )but they are to everyone else. I've been there with other people's children who have been eye-watering, but their mother (nice people, not SS candidates) barely notices it. Also it seems my hb couldn't change a nappy without retching (although I suspected that was an avoidance tactic...) and on my child it never bothered me, but other kids did.Brian Moore wrote:Are we less sensitive to the smell of our own shit & farts than other people's? If yes, how can this be, given that the smell depends on what we've eaten?
And how come dogs can sniff shit so closely when we're told that their sense of smell if 500 times more sensitive than humans'?
Smell's only your brain's interpretation of chemical signatures, after all. I'm quite interested now, I might do some research after all
Lowering the averages since 2009
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
It might just be the fact that you know it's your own child's. I think on QI (yeah, I know, not that reliable) it said that people were told to smell the same thing and some were told it was vomit and some parmesan cheese and that made a difference to whether they liked the smell.
Also, about your own smell - I suppose if you're used to a smell you might not notice it, but personally I think I notice my own smells as well as anyone else notices my smells (Charlie will now link to some sort of self-smell fallacy).
Also, about your own smell - I suppose if you're used to a smell you might not notice it, but personally I think I notice my own smells as well as anyone else notices my smells (Charlie will now link to some sort of self-smell fallacy).
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I think "appropriateness" could be a factor. While you're sitting on the loo you will not really be aware of the smell, but in a restaurant the same smell would stand out. Whether it's your own or somebody else's also factors into that: you might be disgusted by the smell of shit in a restaurant, but if it is your own shit you would also be mortified with embarrassment.Brian Moore wrote:Are we less sensitive to the smell of our own shit & farts than other people's?
Also, your own smell is not noticeable while you're actually on the loo, but if you walk out and then go straight back in (e.g. to pick up your reading glasses ) then it hits you. I can't see any explanation for that.
Avoiding other people's smells makes good sense from a survival point of view - avoid catching a possible disease (or being asked to change a nappy ). Your own smells are entirely irrelevant there.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
You're all sick. My poos don't smell.
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I think that proves you're Jesus.Jon O'Neill wrote:You're all sick. My poos don't smell.
... although actually, if you notice people being sick it's a sign that they do.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6353
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
They havn't got a nose, boom boom.Jon O'Neill wrote:You're all sick. My poos don't smell.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Lesley Hines
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
- Location: Worcester
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
*bump*
How come you need wet (or at least damp) hands to open things like plastic bags? Usually water decreases friction and makes stuff slippier, but it's almost impossible to open plastic bags with dry hands, but they conveniently stick to wet fingers. Why?? It should surely be the other way round, with the ridges of your fingerprints adding the necessary friction to enable the two surfaces to slide over each other.
Don't get it.
How come you need wet (or at least damp) hands to open things like plastic bags? Usually water decreases friction and makes stuff slippier, but it's almost impossible to open plastic bags with dry hands, but they conveniently stick to wet fingers. Why?? It should surely be the other way round, with the ridges of your fingerprints adding the necessary friction to enable the two surfaces to slide over each other.
Don't get it.
Lowering the averages since 2009
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I'm guessing, but perhaps to get rid of the static?Lesley Hines wrote:*bump*
How come you need wet (or at least damp) hands to open things like plastic bags? Usually water decreases friction and makes stuff slippier, but it's almost impossible to open plastic bags with dry hands, but they conveniently stick to wet fingers. Why?? It should surely be the other way round, with the ridges of your fingerprints adding the necessary friction to enable the two surfaces to slide over each other.
Don't get it.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Some things are grippier when slightly wet, like the Earth slope I have to get up if I don't want to walk the long way round. And pages/your finger.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I'm guessing, but perhaps to get rid of the static?Lesley Hines wrote:*bump*
How come you need wet (or at least damp) hands to open things like plastic bags? Usually water decreases friction and makes stuff slippier, but it's almost impossible to open plastic bags with dry hands, but they conveniently stick to wet fingers. Why?? It should surely be the other way round, with the ridges of your fingerprints adding the necessary friction to enable the two surfaces to slide over each other.
Don't get it.
- Lesley Hines
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
- Location: Worcester
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Possibly, but you'd hope repellant forces would help, not hinder, and it's not like plastic's polarised to start with. Certainly not if it's PE, it's a straight hydrocarbon chain.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I'm guessing, but perhaps to get rid of the static?
Can't be - paper's really absorptive. Just look at the effect of dropping a book in the bath ( ) With paper it would increase the friction as the surface texture of the paper is increased. Same with mud, up to a point. The detritus and other organic matter would help absorb water and make it stickier until it got really sloopy, and that's when you (I) fall over.Gavin Chipper wrote:pages/your finger
They don't happen with plastic though. The surface texture's smooth to start with.
Lowering the averages since 2009
- Adam Gillard
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
- Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
So the solution for Player B who is in this impossible snooker is to hit the white really hard in the direction of the ball on despite the snookering balls in the way. E.g. mickey-moused against the bottom cushion by pink and black; blue on top cushion. Hit white in direction of blue hard enough so that it could reach it were in not for the pink and black in the way.Clive Brooker wrote:To my surprise, worldsnooker.com seems to answer my original question explicitly
"14. Foul and a Miss
The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless only the Black remains on the table, or a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on. In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee’s opinion, to have reached the ball on but (for) the obstructing ball or balls."
I've inserted "for" in the final sentence.
Alternative solution to get out of any tricky snooker: Do the Ronnie O'Sullivan "Oops, I knocked a ball with my hand. Clumsy me." As far as I know this loophole still hasn't been plugged despite the controversy in that O'Sullivan-Higgins match - the ref didn't call a miss because Ronnie didn't hit the white at all (although if he thought it was a deliberate ploy he could surely have used his discretion: "The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS"). So if the ref (Jan Verhaas I think) thought there was some skullduggery involved he could have called a miss.
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
It's possible that because water is a polar molecule, it attracts parts of the molecule chains that make up the bag, and this, combined with the grippiness of one's fingers when damp, could increase the friction.Lesley Hines wrote:They don't happen with plastic though. The surface texture's smooth to start with.
The same polar properties could in theory overcome the static that holds the bag closed simply by disrupting their distribution.
Pure speculation. You should try Last Word in New Scientist?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
As soon as you try to separate the layers you generate static that makes them cling even harder together - think how clingfilm prefers to cling to itself. But I've never tried wet hands - I usually have the problem in shops where you weigh your own vegetables. The little polythene (they're called that but I don't know what they really are) bags are the devil to get open. My solution is to 'snap' the top of the bag by pulling both ends sharply outwards (I hope that's intelligible) which slightly stretches both layers but differently so that they no longer match.Lesley Hines wrote:Possibly, but you'd hope repellant forces would help, not hinder, and it's not like plastic's polarised to start with. Certainly not if it's PE, it's a straight hydrocarbon chain.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I'm guessing, but perhaps to get rid of the static?
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Even better, I just don't use those bags, I'd only bin them when I got home anyway.Rosemary Roberts wrote:As soon as you try to separate the layers you generate static that makes them cling even harder together - think how clingfilm prefers to cling to itself. But I've never tried wet hands - I usually have the problem in shops where you weigh your own vegetables. The little polythene (they're called that but I don't know what they really are) bags are the devil to get open. My solution is to 'snap' the top of the bag by pulling both ends sharply outwards (I hope that's intelligible) which slightly stretches both layers but differently so that they no longer match.Lesley Hines wrote:Possibly, but you'd hope repellant forces would help, not hinder, and it's not like plastic's polarised to start with. Certainly not if it's PE, it's a straight hydrocarbon chain.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I'm guessing, but perhaps to get rid of the static?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I don't use them except when I have to, but the checkout staff can get quite shirty if expected to weigh and bill each individual mushroom. And when I get home the bags get reused and eventually recycled.Ian Volante wrote:Rosemary Roberts wrote:Even better, I just don't use those bags, I'd only bin them when I got home anyway.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I'm guessing, but perhaps to get rid of the static?
...
As soon as you try to separate the layers you generate static that makes them cling even harder together - think how clingfilm prefers to cling to itself. But I've never tried wet hands - I usually have the problem in shops where you weigh your own vegetables. The little polythene (they're called that but I don't know what they really are) bags are the devil to get open. My solution is to 'snap' the top of the bag by pulling both ends sharply outwards (I hope that's intelligible) which slightly stretches both layers but differently so that they no longer match.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Good question.Lesley Hines wrote:*bump*
How come you need wet (or at least damp) hands to open things like plastic bags? Usually water decreases friction and makes stuff slippier, but it's almost impossible to open plastic bags with dry hands, but they conveniently stick to wet fingers. Why?? It should surely be the other way round, with the ridges of your fingerprints adding the necessary friction to enable the two surfaces to slide over each other.
Don't get it.
Could air pressure play a big part? The two sides of the bag get a certain amount of static which brings them together, and they are so smooth and flexible that when they have come together there is no air between them. When I were a lad, atmospheric pressure was 14 pounds per square inch, which you can only overcome by getting some air to infiltrate from the edges - but you can't locate an edge. However introducing some water between your finger and the bag will drive out the air between them, meaning there is no pressure difference between your finger and the bag, and give you a sporting chance.
- Brian Moore
- Devotee
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
- Location: Exeter
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Yes. A little home experiment:Ian Volante wrote:the grippiness of one's fingers when damp, could increase the friction.
Completely dry your forefinger and thumb: they slide quite smoothly over each other. Now lick them - still quite slidy. But as they dry they become quite tacky. It suggests to me that skin has an optimum moistness (non-greasy) for gripping, and that that's all that's going on with the plastic bags. Forget air pressure, molecules and charge, I reckon. It's simple, innit?
- Lesley Hines
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
- Location: Worcester
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I don't live in a world yet where I can completely get away from plastic bags, much as I'd like to I do strongly agree their use should be minimised tho
Ooo I've just found this interesting article.
I've been researching it gently for a coupla days and thought this was really interesting. They're saying that, contrary to previously-held beliefs about the purpose of fingerprints, they actually reduce the gripping area in a fingertip by 33%. Therefore filling the ridges will increase gripping area, rather than reducing texture, or whatever. Still doesn't completely answer it.
I don't think it's any sort of definitive answer, but they're all interesting ideas and almost certainly all contributing factors. I might write in to New Scientist to see if there's any learned physicist out there who specialises in carrier bag mechanics. Like you do
Ooo I've just found this interesting article.
I've been researching it gently for a coupla days and thought this was really interesting. They're saying that, contrary to previously-held beliefs about the purpose of fingerprints, they actually reduce the gripping area in a fingertip by 33%. Therefore filling the ridges will increase gripping area, rather than reducing texture, or whatever. Still doesn't completely answer it.
I don't think it's any sort of definitive answer, but they're all interesting ideas and almost certainly all contributing factors. I might write in to New Scientist to see if there's any learned physicist out there who specialises in carrier bag mechanics. Like you do
Lowering the averages since 2009
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
The Progressive Bag Affiliates (PBA), which represents many of the leading manufacturers of plastic bags, said that about 65 per cent of Americans re-used their bags for rubbish disposal, lunch bags and clearing up after pets.Lesley Hines wrote:I don't live in a world yet where I can completely get away from plastic bags, much as I'd like to
Plastic bags require 70 per cent less energy to manufacture than paper bags and produce half the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the process, according to the PBA. For every seven vehicles needed to deliver paper bags only one is needed for the same number of plastic bags, helping to save energy and reduce emissions.
From The Times yesterday. May not be a totally impartial body, but these things are never straightforward.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
It seems better to me to avoid using any bag where possible. I certainly don't replace plastic ones with paper ones.David Williams wrote:The Progressive Bag Affiliates (PBA), which represents many of the leading manufacturers of plastic bags, said that about 65 per cent of Americans re-used their bags for rubbish disposal, lunch bags and clearing up after pets.Lesley Hines wrote:I don't live in a world yet where I can completely get away from plastic bags, much as I'd like to
Plastic bags require 70 per cent less energy to manufacture than paper bags and produce half the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the process, according to the PBA. For every seven vehicles needed to deliver paper bags only one is needed for the same number of plastic bags, helping to save energy and reduce emissions.
From The Times yesterday. May not be a totally impartial body, but these things are never straightforward.
One vaguely amusing theory I came across recently is that plastic bags going to landfill actually help with sequestering carbon, and are therefore good for the environment. I'm not convinced until i see the maths however...
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6353
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Here's a question.
Dmitry Goretsky, Why?
Dmitry Goretsky, Why?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Ermmm...............................Marc Meakin wrote:Here's a question.
Dmitry Goretsky, Why?
- Brian Moore
- Devotee
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
- Location: Exeter
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Well, a question I'd like answered, but as it's only four days old, the 'always' is a bit of an exaggeration....
How can my radio-controlled bed-side alarm clock reset set each night (for the past four nights) to exactly four hours behind? I've got two other radio-controlled wall clocks, and they've stuck on the right time. Each morning I press the reset button, and it finds the right time again.
I guess the second and minute hands are right to the millisecond, as advertised, but the four-hour discrepancy in the hour hand is a bit of a drawback...
How can my radio-controlled bed-side alarm clock reset set each night (for the past four nights) to exactly four hours behind? I've got two other radio-controlled wall clocks, and they've stuck on the right time. Each morning I press the reset button, and it finds the right time again.
I guess the second and minute hands are right to the millisecond, as advertised, but the four-hour discrepancy in the hour hand is a bit of a drawback...
- Lesley Hines
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
- Location: Worcester
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
This is a new question (to me) but I hoped some of you might be able to shed some light, or think more laterally than I'm doing on it.
Some weirdo keeps taking out home insurance policies for my house. It's currently insured for £1.75 million with three different companies (for £1m, £500k and £250k), not including what it's actually insured for. I've obviously told the companies concerned.
What I don't understand is how the fraudster can profit from it? You need a police report for burglary / fire / whatever someone might claim on their insurance for, and that wouldn't be accessible to Mr Dodgy McFraud. So what's in it for him? What's the scam that I'm missing? Why would someone pay for a policy (with huge glaring errors in it; the companies thought I was being sarky at first when I pointed out we actually have 10 bedrooms) on a house they don't own? And should I be worried about the withheld-number phone calls in the middle of the night asking if we're at home?
Answers from insurers / actuaries / Edward de Bono types / defense lawyers / career criminals please
Some weirdo keeps taking out home insurance policies for my house. It's currently insured for £1.75 million with three different companies (for £1m, £500k and £250k), not including what it's actually insured for. I've obviously told the companies concerned.
What I don't understand is how the fraudster can profit from it? You need a police report for burglary / fire / whatever someone might claim on their insurance for, and that wouldn't be accessible to Mr Dodgy McFraud. So what's in it for him? What's the scam that I'm missing? Why would someone pay for a policy (with huge glaring errors in it; the companies thought I was being sarky at first when I pointed out we actually have 10 bedrooms) on a house they don't own? And should I be worried about the withheld-number phone calls in the middle of the night asking if we're at home?
Answers from insurers / actuaries / Edward de Bono types / defense lawyers / career criminals please
Lowering the averages since 2009
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Why do snooker players flap their fingers?
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Maybe an identify fraud scheme? An insurance document for a house might suffice for some purpose, like a utility bill does.Lesley Hines wrote:This is a new question (to me) but I hoped some of you might be able to shed some light, or think more laterally than I'm doing on it.
Some weirdo keeps taking out home insurance policies for my house. It's currently insured for £1.75 million with three different companies (for £1m, £500k and £250k), not including what it's actually insured for. I've obviously told the companies concerned.
What I don't understand is how the fraudster can profit from it? You need a police report for burglary / fire / whatever someone might claim on their insurance for, and that wouldn't be accessible to Mr Dodgy McFraud. So what's in it for him? What's the scam that I'm missing? Why would someone pay for a policy (with huge glaring errors in it; the companies thought I was being sarky at first when I pointed out we actually have 10 bedrooms) on a house they don't own? And should I be worried about the withheld-number phone calls in the middle of the night asking if we're at home?
Answers from insurers / actuaries / Edward de Bono types / defense lawyers / career criminals please
- Lesley Hines
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
- Location: Worcester
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I thought the same myself, but all the dozy wazzock's documentation necessary for that comes in through our locked postbox, so the perp doesn't get his mitts on it. Once you can understand, but by the third time he'd've worked out he can't get the paperwork he needs. You'll know if he has though: my apterous rating will shoot up.Charlie Reams wrote:Maybe an identify fraud scheme? An insurance document for a house might suffice for some purpose, like a utility bill does.
I should steal his identity, torch the place, and walk off with a little under £2m.
Lowering the averages since 2009
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Very strange. Maybe he's trying to be friendly but just isn't very good at interacting with people. The payments haven't come from Belgium by any chance, have they?Lesley Hines wrote:I thought the same myself, but all the dozy wazzock's documentation necessary for that comes in through our locked postbox, so the perp doesn't get his mitts on it. Once you can understand, but by the third time he'd've worked out he can't get the paperwork he needs. You'll know if he has though: my apterous rating will shoot up.Charlie Reams wrote:Maybe an identify fraud scheme? An insurance document for a house might suffice for some purpose, like a utility bill does.
I should steal his identity, torch the place, and walk off with a little under £2m.
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I'm sorry you're being troubled, Lesley, but it's a fascinating question!Lesley Hines wrote:This is a new question (to me) but I hoped some of you might be able to shed some light, or think more laterally than I'm doing on it.
Some weirdo keeps taking out home insurance policies for my house. It's currently insured for £1.75 million with three different companies (for £1m, £500k and £250k), not including what it's actually insured for. I've obviously told the companies concerned.
What I don't understand is how the fraudster can profit from it? You need a police report for burglary / fire / whatever someone might claim on their insurance for, and that wouldn't be accessible to Mr Dodgy McFraud. So what's in it for him? What's the scam that I'm missing? Why would someone pay for a policy (with huge glaring errors in it; the companies thought I was being sarky at first when I pointed out we actually have 10 bedrooms) on a house they don't own? And should I be worried about the withheld-number phone calls in the middle of the night asking if we're at home?
Answers from insurers / actuaries / Edward de Bono types / defense lawyers / career criminals please
Is it possible that your dozy wazzock is himself the victim of a fraud. He may genuinely believe that he has bought your house (perhaps to go with the Eiffel Tower and Brooklyn Bridge he already owns). Is he actually putting down money on these policies or just setting them up and leaving it at that?
Or it's a simple mistake and he is really trying to insure the castle next door.
- Lesley Hines
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
- Location: Worcester
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
After charming one of the company's Fraud Departments it turns out it's a cashback scam. They're internet policies that were offering cashback as part of the deal. Man, what a desperate state of affairs To go through all that for 75 (or whatever) lousy quid.Lesley Hines wrote:What's the scam that I'm missing?
You're all rubbish as career criminals go, though
Oh, and the snooker finger - twitch thing? It's just nervous. JV commented once. Interestingly Asian players (that have had different coaches) don't do it, and they also have a shorter withdraw.
Lowering the averages since 2009
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
He's probably doing it to loads of properties.Lesley Hines wrote:Man, what a desperate state of affairs To go through all that for 75 (or whatever) lousy quid.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Racist but true.Lesley Hines wrote:Asian players [...] also have a shorter withdraw.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I have to point out that I was seriously going to make this joke, but then I considered it beneath even me.Matt Morrison wrote:Racist but true.Lesley Hines wrote:Asian players [...] also have a shorter withdraw.
- Lesley Hines
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
- Location: Worcester
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
The plot thickens. After the arrival of two more (ffs) I rang the respective companies, the first of which said they don't do cashback deals. Back to square one then. On the plus side my house is currently worth £3.05m. Who says there's a recession on? That's the fastest scale of growth I've heard since Man United found the pricing gun in the club shop.Lesley Hines wrote:After charming one of the company's Fraud Departments it turns out it's a cashback scam.Lesley Hines wrote:What's the scam that I'm missing?
Lowering the averages since 2009
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Charlie, can you please explain the Google logo for today? It won't let me click on it. Thanks.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I only checked it out after seeing Jack's status update on Facebook. It really pisses me off that when you use iGoogle (which is such a sweet homepage tool that you really ought to be) you don't get the joy of the ever-changing Google logo like you do on the shitty blank white regular Google page. Seems an unfair oversight, but I guess it would be much harder to use logos like this on the iGoogle set up.Ryan Taylor wrote:Charlie, can you please explain the Google logo for today? It won't let me click on it. Thanks.
I did happen to see it yesterday or the day before, just as a lucky consequence of iGoogle signing me out for some reason, and it was another Flash-animated one that was also fucking cool. Are they doing a week of special animated logos or something? I dunno, too lazy to Google it.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
If you're white and you only sleep with black people, does that make you extremely racist or extremely unracist?
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
It makes you Cheryl Cole.Matt Morrison wrote:If you're white and you only sleep with black people, does that make you extremely racist or extremely unracist?
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
The Grauniad have an article about it, complete with an informative video.Ryan Taylor wrote:Charlie, can you please explain the Google logo for today? It won't let me click on it. Thanks.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I want to know why in a packet of Jaffa Cakes 11 of them face one way whilst one of the ends faces in the opposite direction.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
That never used to be the case (speaking as a former committee member of the Hugabugga Jaffacake Appreciation Society international).Ryan Taylor wrote:I want to know why in a packet of Jaffa Cakes 11 of them face one way whilst one of the ends faces in the opposite direction.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Ha, cool. I'm pretty sure it is the case now because at least every pack of 12 that I have bought within the last year are packaged like this. It must be a conscious decision to make the 12th or 1st one to be packaged the opposite direction but I just dunno why. If anything it makes no sense because with there being a chocolate-chocolate face this could result in melting together and messing up 2 of the Jaffa Cakes. I'm not sure what it's like for them mini packs of Jaffa Cakes that have "6" in (which seemed to regularly have 7 (and I once got 8)).Ian Volante wrote:That never used to be the case (speaking as a former committee member of the Hugabugga Jaffacake Appreciation Society international).Ryan Taylor wrote:I want to know why in a packet of Jaffa Cakes 11 of them face one way whilst one of the ends faces in the opposite direction.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Ryan Taylor wrote:chocolate face
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Could it be to stop the chocolate melting and sticking to the film wrapper? I can imagine people would find that much more distressing than a chocolate face disaster.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Charlie Reams wrote:Ryan Taylor wrote:chocolate face
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
I would think it is to cushion the chocolate on the last one that would otherwise be cracked by the pressure that closes the packet.Ryan Taylor wrote:I want to know why in a packet of Jaffa Cakes 11 of them face one way whilst one of the ends faces in the opposite direction.
Maybe we need a research project here - does it also apply to chocolate Hobnobs?
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
A-lol. Now fix Likes.Charlie Reams wrote:Ryan Taylor wrote:chocolate face
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
How much money does leaving a phone charger plugged in and switched on with no phone attached cost?
How about with a phone attached?
How about a TV on standby?
How about a light bulb?
How about a strip light like in my kitchen?
How about a TV switched on?
How about a vacuum cleaner?
Order the above by how much it costs to run each for an hour.
Thanks.
How about with a phone attached?
How about a TV on standby?
How about a light bulb?
How about a strip light like in my kitchen?
How about a TV switched on?
How about a vacuum cleaner?
Order the above by how much it costs to run each for an hour.
Thanks.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
You could Google all of these in about 5 seconds.Jon O'Neill wrote:How much money does leaving a phone charger plugged in and switched on with no phone attached cost?
How about with a phone attached?
How about a TV on standby?
How about a light bulb?
How about a strip light like in my kitchen?
How about a TV switched on?
How about a vacuum cleaner?
Order the above by how much it costs to run each for an hour.
Thanks.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
- Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Did you ever get this sorted out, Lesley?Lesley Hines wrote:The plot thickens. After the arrival of two more (ffs) I rang the respective companies, the first of which said they don't do cashback deals. Back to square one then. On the plus side my house is currently worth £3.05m. Who says there's a recession on? That's the fastest scale of growth I've heard since Man United found the pricing gun in the club shop.Lesley Hines wrote:After charming one of the company's Fraud Departments it turns out it's a cashback scam.Lesley Hines wrote:What's the scam that I'm missing?
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Ok, first one. Search terms "money phone charger switched on". Result 1 is environmental dicks, who I don't listen to in any case. Result 2, a forum - nobody knew. Result 3, see result 1. Result 4, see result 3.Charlie Reams wrote:You could Google all of these in about 5 seconds.Jon O'Neill wrote:How much money does leaving a phone charger plugged in and switched on with no phone attached cost?
How about with a phone attached?
How about a TV on standby?
How about a light bulb?
How about a strip light like in my kitchen?
How about a TV switched on?
How about a vacuum cleaner?
Order the above by how much it costs to run each for an hour.
Thanks.
This has taken me about 3 minutes.
Anyone know this sort of thing for sure?
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Rule of thumb is how much heat it generates. Hot (light bulb) costs a lot. Warm (some chargers) still worth switching off. Doesn't work so well for big things like TVs because it 's hard to tell. But even 1p an hour is costing you £85 a year.
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Does it cost? If so, does the same apply to say an iPod charger I have plugged inall the time and shaver charger etc. even though nothing is attached using the electric?Jon O'Neill wrote:How much money does leaving a phone charger plugged in and switched on with no phone attached cost?
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
On a related point, if I have room lights operated by dimmer switches and I turn down the dimmers so the light level in the room is reduced, am I using less electricity or does the consumption in fact remain exactly the same with a higher proportion of the power being dissipated as heat?