my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon   » Useless Fact's (Page 68)

This topic comprises 88 pages: 1  2  3  ...  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  ...  86  87  88

Author Topic: Useless Fact's Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 09-03-2006 01:02 PM                        Rated G Useless fact - How do they build bridges when water's in the way? In the old days, building bridges required the sinking of many large rocks. Not the most elegant construction technique, maybe, but certainly quite effective. The Romans built bridges this way over 2,000 years ago that are still in use today, but most modern foundations for large bridges begin their lives as huge floating tanks. During the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge, laborers worked in pneumatic caissons, or huge airtight cylinders full of compressed air. Conditions inside the caissons were notoriously miserable; twenty men died from fires, explosions, and something called "Caisson Disease," which we now know as the bends. No-one knew much about the effect of air pressure on the human body back then, and the designer, Washington Roebling, was paralyzed for life. In the 1930s, workers on the San Francisco Bay Bridge used giant submersible caissons as actual bridge foundations. Initially buoyant, these huge steel contraptions were towed out to the bay, then gradually filled with concrete and water, and sunk. By that time diving technology had improved, so individual divers, or "sand hogs," assisted in the process. The same method is used today -- huge metal caissons weighing up to 30,000 tons are floated out to a designated spot and then sunk. For example, the foundations for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge were pumped with 12,000 tons of sea water.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 09-07-2006 09:23 AM                        Rated G Useless fact - Where did the concept of "starve a fever, feed a cold" come from and is it good advice? The original maxim is "feed a cold, starve a fever." In other words, eat plentifully to fight a cold, and resist food if you have a fever. To avoid confusion, we recommend steering clear of both versions of this myth. The practice of fasting to combat fever dates back to a 1574 dictionary. As do many other medical practices from the Middle Ages, starving yourself when you're sick seems to us to be a pretty questionable tactic. However, opinions on the issue differ. A 2002 article from New Scientist cites a Dutch research team that ran an ad hoc experiment and came to the conclusion that "eating a meal boosts the type of immune response that destroys the viruses responsible for colds, while fasting stimulates the response that tackles the bacterial infections responsible for most fevers." But the evidence is far from conclusive. Colds and flus are caused by viruses, and your body needs energy to fight them. Stay at home, eat light, healthy food when you're hungry, and drink lots of fluids.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 10-10-2006 08:47 AM                        Rated G Useless fact - Does smoking marijuana really kill brain cells? The short answer: No. The long answer: The reason why you ask this is because you probably heard or read somewhere that marijuana damages brain cells, or makes you stupid. These claims are untrue. The first one -- marijuana kills brain cells -- is based on research done during the second Reefer Madness Movement. A study attempted to show that marijuana smoking damaged brain structures in monkeys. However, the study was poorly performed and it was severely criticized by a medical review board. Studies done afterwards failed to show any brain damage, in fact a very recent study on Rhesus monkeys used technology so sensitive that scientists could actually see the effect of learning on brain cells, and it found no damage. But this was Reefer Madness II, and the prohibitionists were looking around for anything they could find to keep the marijuana legalization movement in check, so this study was widely used in anti-marijuana propaganda. It was recanted later. (To this day, the radical anti-drug groups, like P.R.I.D.E. and Dr. Gabriel Nahas, still use it -- In fact, America's most popular drug education program, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, claims that marijuana ``can impair memory perception & judgement by destroying brain cells.'' When police and teachers read this and believe it, our job gets really tough, since it takes a long time to explain to children how Ms. Jones and Officer Bob were wrong.) The truth is, no study has ever demonstrated cellular damage, stupidity, mental impairment, or insanity brought on specifically by marijuana use -- even heavy marijuana use. This is not to say that it cannot be abused, however. But the very recent medical research showed that marijuana can help fight Alzheimer's disease.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 10-10-2006 08:52 AM                        Rated G Useless fact - How do I explain to a child why it's important to take a bath or shower? Tell him without his daily negative ions a lot of dirt would collect in his ears. If that happened potatoes would begin to grow there. The problem with this solution is he may shower even less so that he can make his own fries later. The same goes for neck rings. They'd look like crop circles and he wouldn't want aliens stopping at the wrong address. Jokes aside, young children do not really understand the need to keep clean, except in a very general manner. Getting dirty while they play is either fun or not even noticed. It is far easier to make bath time a fun and cheerful experience, which the child will look forward to, rather than trying to make a two-year old child understand hygiene in any meaningful way. Adding toys and bath-foam to bath will make bath time easier and more fun for a child. Cleaning behind the ears can be made into a game.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 10-11-2006 09:41 AM                        Rated G Useless fact - I love to sing, but I have terrible stage fright. How can I overcome it? While looking for the answer to your question we came across a few tips for a new singers who have stage fright. Here's one personal experience that you may find helpful: I am now a professional teacher. I have to get up in front of classes of student five days a week. However, when I was younger, I used to get terrible stage fright. I remember one presentation that i had to give in high school in which I spent the entire time mumbling and speaking down into my demonstration rather than out to the audience. So, here are a few tips that helped me to get over the stage fright. 1. Start small. Start by singing for friends and family, people with whom you are comfortable. As your confidence with them increases, so will your ability to perform for others. My break through came while I was working as a summer camp counselor. I was teaching basic skills to younger boys and found that I enjoyed that. From the small groups I had at Scout Camp, I have moved up to teaching full fledge college courses. 2. When you are in front of your audience, if you can make eye contact, do so with a few people. Smile at each one and take in the fact that they smile back. Pretend you are doing something nice for your best friends and that these people are your best friends. 3. Try joining a choir. I too like to sing, but the thought of doing a solo would have been just a scary for me as getting up in front of a large group of people to give a speech. However, I never had problems with stage fright when I was part of a group. As my skill at singing improved, so did my confidence. I am by no means of a skill level where I could make a living as a singer, but I also don't worry about what other people think anymore either. I don't remember who said it, but one philosopher once said, "Do that which you fear and the fear will die." So, give these ideas a try and see if they help you.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 10-12-2006 03:16 PM                        Rated G Useless fact - How did 40 hours a week come to be known as "full time"? Working nine to five, what a way to make a livin' -- but before 1938, many Americans spent sunrise to sunset on the job, six days a week. And you thought your job was bad. Workers agitated for a 10-hour day as early as the 1820s. Laws were passed reducing work hours for U.S. federal employees and for women workers in a couple states, but these were poorly enforced and mostly useless. Estimates of hours worked in manufacturing from 1830 to 1890 show that a 60- to 70-hour workweek was the norm. In 1909, New York garment workers organized a massive strike to demand a 52-hour workweek. Many of the young women who sewed shirtwaists worked seven days a week, 12 hours a day. Only some of the workers got shorter hours. Finally, after several tries in Congress and battles with the Supreme Court, President Franklin D. Roosevelt got the Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1938. While this law doesn't set the hours worked per week, it does require overtime pay if employees work more than 40 hours in one week. Of course, employers don't want to pay extra, so they tend to set the full-time week at 40 hours. Salaried workers aren't covered by this law, but it did turn the idea of a 40-hour workweek into the national standard.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 10-27-2006 09:26 AM                        Useless fact - What state has the greatest opportunity for employment now? Let's go straight to that unimpeachable source of information: the government. The Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out a monthly unemployment report, which it breaks down by region, geographic area, and state. In August, Hawaii posted the lowest unemployment rate (2.8 %), followed by South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia (3.2% each), then Florida, Nebraska, Idaho, and Wyoming (3.3% each). Michigan and Mississippi suffered the highest unemployment rates, at 7.1% each. (The unemployment rate is defined as the "percentage of employable people actively seeking work, out of the total number of employable people.") Employment opportunities by state might also be judged by job postings per capita. By this measure, California boasts three of the top five cities, led by San Jose in the top spot.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 10-27-2006 12:42 PM                        Rated G Useless fact - Why does a stock split? The stock market isn't for the faint of heart. Sure, you can make a mountain of money, but you can also lose it in the blink of an Enron. Sometimes, usually after significant long-term gains, a stock "splits." A stock split occurs "when a firm issues new shares of stock and in turn lowers the current market price of its stock to a level that is proportionate to pre-split prices." Say for example, you own 10 shares of Joe's Tomato Company, and they're trading at $50 per share. A split would mean you'd double the amount of shares you own, but the price of each share would be cut in half. So you'd end up with 20 shares adjusted to $25. So if it's all a wash, what's the point? As the Motley Fool explains, companies often believe the market will view a stock split as good news. It's a company's way of saying, "We believe in this stock and you should buy it." Of course, sometimes that confidence is unfounded, but hey, those are the breaks. Another, more obvious, benefit to a stock split is that more people can afford to buy shares. Lower prices tend to give investors the illusion they're "getting a bargain." But remember -- $200 for a great stock is still a better deal than $2 for a lousy one.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 10-27-2006 08:03 PM                        Rated G Useless fact - How can I obtain dual citizenship? Dual citizenship (or "dual nationality") means you're a citizen of two countries at the same time. Unfortunately, like most governmental procedures, it's far from simple. The U.S. State Department's page on dual nationality answered most of our questions. Basically, there are several ways an American can obtain dual citizenship. Marriage and naturalization appear to be the main two. A naturalized citizen is someone who was foreign born but has since been granted full citizenship in their country of residence. It's worth noting that the State Department mentions "a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship." However, near as we can tell, that's the exception rather than the rule. This unofficial FAQ on dual citizenship covers all the issues, including how to obtain dual citizenship. If you have...became a citizen of another country after already having U.S. citizenship, and the other country in question does not have any laws or regulations requiring you to formally renounce your U.S. citizenship...then current U.S. law unambiguously assures your right to keep both citizenships for life. Before seeking dual citizenship, we suggest you get all the facts from a government official. Once you see the all paperwork involved, you may realize one country's enough.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 10-27-2006 08:06 PM                        Rated G Useless fact - How did popcorn become a popular snack at movie theaters? No trip to the movies is complete without an overpriced tub of popcorn covered in goo. Good thing, 'cause popcorn sales are responsible for a substantial portion of theater profits. To learn how the tradition began, we first consulted our links. According to them, the salty snack was very popular "from the 1890s until the Great Depression." Even during the Depression, popcorn remained "one of the few luxuries down-and-out families could afford." Popcorn first became available at movie theaters way back in 1912. Apparently back in the old days, popcorn vendors would "set up shop" outside theaters. The theater managers didn't like this, thinking it was a distraction. But moviegoers disagreed, frequently ducking out to buy popcorn and then ducking back in to see the movie. It wasn't long until the theatre owners realized they could set up their own popcorn popper. That's exactly what they did, and popcorn's been associated with movies ever since. Kind of like Cracker Jacks and baseball games or gruel and orphanages.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 10-27-2006 08:09 PM                        Rated G Useless fact - What's the origin of the 21-gun salute? It's been said that 21 guns are fired because the digits in 1776 add up to 21 (1+7+7+6=21). Kinda neat, but Snopes.com writes this is just an urban legend. The real story behind the honor is a bit more complicated. The United States Army explains the salute's history. "Originally warships fired seven-gun salutes -- the number seven probably selected because of its astrological and Biblical significance." Land-based cannons had a higher capacity for gun powder and "were able to fire three guns for every shot fired afloat, hence the salute by shore batteries was 21 guns." Eventually, as gun powder improved, ships fired 21 guns, too. Many confuse the 21-gun salute with the 3-volley salute. The 21-gun salute is used primarily as a greeting. It's fired during presidental arrivals and departures and when heads of state visit. Also, it's not limited to the United States -- many countries have similar ceremonies. The 3-volley salute, on the other hand, is perfomed during police and military funerals by the Honor Guard and is intended as a reminder of the departed's sacrifice. While the two salutes look (and sound) similar, the 21-gun salute is considered the higher honor.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 10-30-2006 05:18 PM                        Rated G Useless fact - What's the point of giving someone two life sentences? First, "life" doesn't necessarily mean until they die. For example, in California, a punishment that's listed as "life" means they're eligible for parole in 7 years. Only if the sentence is "life without the possibility of parole" will it actually mean they spend the rest of their life in prison. Second, a separate sentence for each crime can give some closure to each victim or victim's family. They can know that the defendant got a life sentence for the crime against their loved one and the bad guy didn't get a "free" crime. Finally - and this one is especially true if the defendant gets two (or more) life terms in cases arising in multiple jurisdictions or in multiple cases. Suppose a "life" case was overturned in the appellate court. Without a second sentence in place for the defendant to serve, technically he could be released unless he was being held pending trial on another case. Because appeals can take a while to sort through, it could be better from the prosecution's standpoint to try and get another life sentence while the evidence is still fresh, witness' memories haven't faded, etc. Otherwise, they would have to scramble to prosecute a guy years later when they thought "why bother - he's doing life" on another case.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 11-01-2006 08:19 AM                        Rated G Useless fact - If none of the major parties' candidates appeal to you, is it better not to vote at all, or to vote for a party who'll never win anyway? If voting is an expression of what you believe, it shouldn't matter whether your candidate has a chance of winning. You're not voting for the candidate because they're popular (or you shouldn't, anyway) but because you agree with them and want them to represent your voice in government. Not voting at all expresses that you have no political opinions. If that's not true, find a candidate who best represents you and vote for them. If the choice is between voting for a losing candidate and not voting at all, I say cast your ballot for the one that speaks for you. Voting for a third party candidate sends a message that the major parties are not serving your needs, and that if they want your vote they will have to find a candidate you can support. Of course there are strategic reasons for voting *against* a particular candidate that you can take into consideration as well (a vote for their opponent can be construed as a vote against the candidate). It all depends on the message you want to send, and what you want the final outcome to be. In a close race it may come down to which of the most likely winners will best serve your needs.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 11-01-2006 08:20 AM                        Rated G Useless fact - If none of the major parties' candidates appeal to you, is it better not to vote at all, or to vote for a party who'll never win anyway? If voting is an expression of what you believe, it shouldn't matter whether your candidate has a chance of winning. You're not voting for the candidate because they're popular (or you shouldn't, anyway) but because you agree with them and want them to represent your voice in government. Not voting at all expresses that you have no political opinions. If that's not true, find a candidate who best represents you and vote for them. If the choice is between voting for a losing candidate and not voting at all, I say cast your ballot for the one that speaks for you. Voting for a third party candidate sends a message that the major parties are not serving your needs, and that if they want your vote they will have to find a candidate you can support. Of course there are strategic reasons for voting *against* a particular candidate that you can take into consideration as well (a vote for their opponent can be construed as a vote against the candidate). It all depends on the message you want to send, and what you want the final outcome to be. In a close race it may come down to which of the most likely winners will best serve your needs.  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 11-01-2006 03:21 PM                        Rated G Useless fact - Is "Rocky" based on a true story? Yes, indeed -- Sylvester Stallone's signature character was inspired by a real-life boxer named Chuck Wepner. Wepner, who calls himself "The Real Rocky," had been a professional pugilist for many years when he challenged Muhammad Ali for the heavyweight title in 1975. An ex-Marine, Wepner was asked before the fight if he thought he had a chance against the Greatest of All Time. Wepner allegedly answered, "I've been a survivor my whole life...if I survived the Marines, I can survive Ali." In fact, Wepner did more than just survive. In the ninth round, he actually introduced Ali to the canvas. Wepner eventually lost, but he was the only fighter to ever knock down Ali while Ali was the champ. Stallone watched the fight and soon went on to write "Rocky," the story of a down-and-out boxer who gets his shot at the heavyweight title and goes the distance against a boisterous and beloved champion. Over the years, there's been some controversy as to whether Stallone owes Wepner any compensation. Earlier this year, the two settled for undisclosed terms, effectively putting an end to the fight.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 88 pages: 1  2  3  ...  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  ...  86  87  88

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.