HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Friday, 17 Apr 1992 01:05:54 EDT
From: MARK RAUGHT <MAR116@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Emergency Traffic Light Interrupts?
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Apr15.164620.29221@chinet.chi.il.us>, koziarz@chinet.chi.il.us
(Louis Koziarz) says:

>Here's something that crossed my mind on the way to work today.  Most of the
>stoplights on busy intersections in my area have this doothingus on the top
>that is a receiver for the stobe light placed on top of emergency vehicles,
>like ambulances and fire trucks.  The truck approaches the light, the thingy
>catches the strobe, and the light changes to green to allow traffic to move
>aside.

>Does anyone have more information about how these work, or any key frequencies
>involved?  I'd love to rig up a maglite with a strobe or something and be
>able to point it out my window on mornings when I'm late.  If this thing can
>detect a strobe on an ambulance 200 yds away, why can't it detect a small
>strobe held in your hand inside your car?  If possible, is this illegal to
>do?  Has anyone tried this?

I would say I doubt it would be illegal as long as the strobe was not connected
to the car. If it was then I think you'd be breaking a law (no flashing white
or red lights on non-emergency vehicles.) But if it's not connected to your car
then you aren't doing anything illegal. Before the flames start, think about it
----the only thing you would be doing is speeding up the change of the light---
and last I checked, those buttons for pedestrians to push weren't illegal :-)


Flash
(Mark A-J. Raught)
From: mayor@ic14.umeeng (Cam "You didn't see me!" Mayor)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:47:40 GMT
Reply-To: mayor@ic14.umeeng
Organization: Sun Microsystems


 It's really because an hour and a half is evenly divisable by nine
minutes, and that's how long I usually seem to whack the snooze
button before getting up.  

 I also like the little nine minute dream vignettes.  

cam.
---
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------"It's about time to change that tired old .sig, cam."---------
----------- email: mayor@eeserv.ee.umanitoba.ca --------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:31:31 GMT

In <1992Apr13.153605.23117@cco.caltech.edu> rknop@cco.caltech.edu (Robert Andrew Knop) writes:

[...]

>Here's my theory: it is intentional, and the snooze alarm doesn't really do 9
>minutes.

>See, (according to my theory) the alarm isn't set to trigger at an arbitrary
>time, but at the exact moment when the minute changes- i.e., when a new number
>is placed in the far right digit on your clock.  (I think my theory only works
>for digital alarm clocks.)  Your snooze alarm is set to do NO MORE THAN 10
>minutes.  Thus, it sets the trigger at the current "minute" plus 9 minutes.
>Thus, if you are 1 second into the current "minute" when you hit the snooze
>alarm, the snooze will last for 9 minutes, 59 seconds.  If you are 50 seconds
>into the current "minute," the snooze will last for 9 minutes, 10 seconds.

The observed behavior on my (digital) clock/radio is this:

Alarm is set for (say) 6:00

SLAP snooze --- the clock shuts up.

Alarm again fires at 6:09 --- not 6:10

SLAP . . .

6:18.  Etc.
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: heathh@cco.caltech.edu (Heath Ian Hunnicutt)
Subject: Re: Head survival time after decapitation
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:32:17 GMT

Grant Edwards is quoting me:
>: 	What fo you think of this?  Is it possible?  How long would you
>: expect a head to "survive" decapitation?  (I heard +/- 30 seconds.)

And thinks this:
>Does that mean that sometimes you die 30 seconds _before_ the blade hits
>your neck??

	Ha. :)
	Of course, by "+/-" I meant to communicate approximately.

	On the other hand, I wonder how often condemned prisoners
have died of fear when "on stage."

See ya,
Heath
	
-- 
Pert Plus is a technological breakthrough designed for today's active people
to look great without a fuss.  Pert Plus is a _complete shampoo plus
conditioner in one bottle_!  PERT PLUS REALLY WORKS!
(My opinions are my own, not Caltech's, not even Procter & Gamble's)
From: dodd@mycenae.cchem (Lawrence R. Dodd)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: rivers cutting through mountains
Followup-To: alt.folklore.science
Date: 17 Apr 92 07:33:42
Organization: /home/dodd/.organization
	<1992Apr16.175326.12568@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: dodd@mycenae.cchem.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: mycenae.cchem.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk's message of 16 Apr 92 17:53:26 GMT


>>>>> On 16 Apr 92 17:53:26 GMT, jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
>>>>> said:

  Jack> Article-I.D.: dcs.1992Apr16.175326.12568
  Jack> Followup-To: alt.folklore.science

  Jack> dogbowl@acme.gen.nz (Alan Brown) wrote:

> It's probably not the right place to ask this, but how can a river
> start on one side of a mountain range and flow through to the other
> side?  This is a question that often bugs me, as I live less than 10
> kilometres from a river that does precisely that. It's in New
> Zealand, and it's called the Manawatu. ( man-awa-tu no emphasised
> syllables).  The gap in question is the Manawatu Gorge, 40 deg 18
> min S, 175 deg 47 min E

  Jack> The river was there first, and when the mountain range (is
  Jack> that the Tararuas?  I've cycled through the Manawatu Gorge but
  Jack> it was a long time ago) was uplifted, the river could cut it
  Jack> away faster than geological squish could push it up.

Jack is right.  A similar explanation holds for the New River Gorge in
West Virginia.  The river pre-dates the range.  In fact the New River
is thought to be one of the oldest rivers in the world.

--
                            Larry
                            dodd@mycenae.cchem.berkeley.edu
From: jc@sppip7.lkg.dec.com (John Chambers)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Bouncing eggs (Was: Eggs and vernal equinox)
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:33:16 GMT
Reply-To: jc@sppip7.lkg.dec.com (John Chambers)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

| While we're on the subject of tricks with raw eggs (so to speak),  I
| heard  that  structurally  sound  raw  eggs  can bounce, rather than
| splatter, if dropped just the right  way  from  some  non-ridiculous
| distance.  Has anybody else heard this? Has anyone managed to do it?
| My own experiments on an extremely small ensemble haven't  supported
| it.

Some time ago, I read an article about a science teacher (junior high,
or high school) that liked to get his (her?) class to write down their
guesses as to how far they could throw raw eggs across the big lawn in
front of the school without breaking them.  Most of the students would
guess 5 or 10 feet. They would then go outside and start tossing eggs,
intending  to measure the distances to the ones that broke.  They were
invariably shocked to find that they couldn't find many  broken  ones,
no  matter  how far they threw them.  Only the ones that hit something
hard would break, plus an occasional one that presumably had a flaw in
the shell.

This was used to teach several important ideas. One, of course, is the
concept of making predictions, and  then  setting  up  a  well-defined
experiment  to test them.  The next lesson is that your experiment may
well not make any distinctions between hypotheses at all, because  the
thing  you're  trying  to  measure  (in this case, the distance and/or
speed of the falling egg) turns out not to be  important  at  all  (at
least within the range of your experimental setup).

There's also the concept of "experimental error"  lurking  here.   Why
does an occasional egg break?  Why not all or none?  What sort of laws
(i.e., generalizations) can be drawn from something that turns out  to
be almost but not quite always true?

Also,  there is the question of how the fragile little egg could be so
difficult to break in this way.  This has two sub-problems.  There  is
the  "proximate"  question:   What is it about an egg that makes it so
strong, and why doesn't it work for impacts with hard objects? There's
also the "ultimate" question:  How did eggs come to be so tough?  This
gets into the point of the adaptiveness of it to critters whose  nests
are mostly above forest floors. (But this turns out to be a misleading
argument; can you explain why?)

In general, the experiment was a good way to teach a lot about  how  a
scientist works, and why you should have a lot of humility in the face
of the natural world.

[Note especially that, unlike in this newsgroup, this teacher demanded
that the students actually carry out the experiment. ;-]
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob DeGlopper)
Subject: Re: Head survival time after decapitation
Reply-To: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob DeGlopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 19:47:39 GMT


In a previous article, s082@brems.ii.uib.no (Ketil Malde) says:

>I was once told that if you cut offblood supply to the head,
>losing consciousness will take about three seconds.  So, if you
>can take the shock of losing the rest of your body, I suppose
>you`d be alive that long.

The time to loss of consciousness wil vary from person to person, but
it should average 5 to 10 seconds.  The shock is a greater concern than
the lack of glucose and oxygen, I think.  

>I suppose it will take a while (minutes?) for the different cells
>to die, there was a police officer a while ago who killed somebody
>by choking him (cutting off blood) for about ten minutes, I believe.

Brain cells begin to die within four to six minutes; irreversible
damage is done in eight to ten minutes of no oxygen supply to the
brain.  Choking is usually cutting off air exchange, which lets your
body use up the oxygen in your lungs -- a fair amount, especially
compared with nothing.
-- 

           Jacob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad
            -- CWRU Biomedical Engineering - jrd5@po.cwru.edu --
From: nrp@btcase.bt.co.uk (Reece Peacock)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Paracetamol results in painful death
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:56:28 GMT
Organization: British Telecom, Lion House, London.

ecc_jim@ecc.tased.edu.au writes:

>My doctor told me this, but I'd like confirmation.

>If you eat a packet of Panadol (i.e. paracetamol) it will take a fortnight to
>kill you and it will be extremely painful. Once absorbed, nothing can be done
>for you.

>I think he said it damages the kidneys (or maybe the liver) - hey I'm a
>programmer not a medico!

There was case in the papers yesterday. A teenage girl took about 70 paracetamol
over the next few days the girl seemed fine. Two to three days later she fell
very ill and died in hospital due to organ failure. I can't remeber which body
organ it was but it was either the liver or kidney.

Reece

      Leicester City            /\___/\  Reece Peacock
          Football Club        _`\o o/'
   ___________ --~~~~--------~~_ _\_/    usenet : nrp@btcase.bt.co.uk
  =_          \   "THE FOXES"   ~,              
    ~~------~ __    )~~~~--_ ,__/_-_     "Brian Little's Blue & White Army"
           _-~  ~~--~      ==~    ~=     "Brian Little's Blue & White Army"
          ~               ~~       ~~
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Prussian Blue
Reply-To: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:58:25 GMT


In article <reynard.703366139@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu!>, reynard@susie.cs.scarolina.edu (John Reynard) writes:
|>It wouldn't have had anything to do with the fact that the Prussian Army 
|>wore Prussian blue either now would it.  I think it is for the army
|>uniforms that it is named Prussian Blue since this is what people around 
|>Europe would have seen.  Not that some idiot didn't taste the stuff and
|>die, that's quite possible but not why it would be named as such.

Thanks.  That is much more believable than the "bold dead chemist" theory
I heard.  For what it's worth, my friend has a bad habit of coming up with
a totally crazy theory out of the blue, and then believing it, but he finds
enough true crazy theories to keep me from dismissing any crazy idea he has
outright.

-Mike
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: larryh@cabezon.uucp (Larry Huntley)
Subject: Re: digital alarm clocks
Organization: SCN Research/QIC Laboratories of Tigard Oregon
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 01:08:07 GMT

In article <92106.214245AAFEG@ASUACAD.BITNET> AAFEG@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:

	[Entertaining argument about users manuals]

>   money and also confirm that the general population will buy anything that
>is advertised on TV.
>
	We need confirmation of _this_?  Check any garage/lawn/rummage
	sale and you can find the stuff that was being hyped a few months
	to a few years ago on TV.


-- 

    Larry Huntley / Logic Modeling Corporation / Beaverton  OR
    Fire and Chains and/Fire and Chains and/Fire and Chains and...
                      [Stop Continental Drift!]
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Bouncing eggs (Was: Eggs and vernal equinox)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 03:15:52 GMT

In article <35094@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, jc@sppip7.lkg.dec.com (John Chambers) writes:
>This gets into the point of the adaptiveness of it to critters whose  nests
>are mostly above forest floors. (But this turns out to be a misleading
>argument; can you explain why?)

Well, for one thing, if an egg falls out of the nest, the bird's no longer
going to be able to keep it warm, so whether or not it breaks, it's dead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: gee@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Thomas Gee)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Pressure
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:49:42 GMT
Organization: Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine

In article <1992Apr8.074615.12947@odin.diku.dk> klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:
>s082@brems.ii.uib.no (Ketil Malde) writes:
>
>>Recently, people (well, navy crack(ed) soldiers) exited from a sub
>>submerged to 180 meters, and rose to the surface.  And lived.
>
>>What are the medical problems that can arise? (except from teh obvious
>>ones of holding your breath and blowing up!)
>
>The water within your body has gasses disolved in it, and
>is in an equilibrium with the air you breathe. What happens
>when there is a quick drop in air pressure? Try opening
>a bottle of pop. You don't want this to happen inside your
>tissues!

But I expect that  submarines use only one atmosphere (more or less)
of pressure internally.  After all, if they used higher pressures, then
the crew would have to decompress after surfacing if they had stayed
down for any length of time.

>Note that the little bubbles can not just raise to
>the surface and disappear, they will stay.  If you are placed
>in a pressure that is higher than the one you rose from too
>fast, the bubbles will usually be disolved.

Actually, any bubbles formed in your blood stream will eventually be
dissolved back into your body.  (Bascially, all dives generate bubble
formation in the circulatory systems.  But the bubbles don't last
forever.)

>However, there
>was a case a few years ago where someone was still suffering
>from paralysis due to bubbles in his central nerveus system
>after spending a few hours a week in a pressure tank for
>6 months.

Except that the paralysis was probably caused by damage inflicted on
his CNS when he first manifested decompression sickness (DCS).  That
damage will not heal simply because the bubbles are removed.  The
horse had already left the barn...

>Klaus O K

Tom	(who doesn't dive, but does know a pressure physiologist or two)

---
Thomas Gee  -=-  S/W Development  -=-   gee@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca
Aerospace/Biosciences, DCIEM, CFB Toronto, DND, Canada
Disclaimer: the previous is solely the opinion of the author.
From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (Doug Krick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Jamming traffic radar
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:35:51 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

In article <1992Apr8.202557.1@vxcrna.cern.ch>, roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.133344.23647@alf.uib.no> s082@brems.ii.uib.no (Ketil Malde
>) writes:
> 
>>And while we're at it, I always had this dream of jamming the police
>>'radars' to show, say 300km/h while you're driving along at 30 :-)
>>Could this be done?
>
>When I was at Caltech, the Pasadena police had one of those annoying
>photo-radar vans that they would use to take pictures of speeders.
>One of the pranks we planned on doing was to make such a jammer, and
>put it in a walkman-like case.  Add a set of headphones for completeness.
>Set it to 90 mph, put on Caltech track team uniforms, and jog past...

Hehehe...  Is it possible that you could put the schematics up for this
jammer?  There is a local Police Dept. that is using the photoradar in the
area, dispite them being ruled unlawful in the State of Illinois...

Krikket  --  a.k.a. Doug Krick  --  krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us   

Supercalifragilisticsadomasochisim   !   Disclaimers?  We don't need no
   -- Need I say anything else?      !   stinkin' discalimers!
From: rapmaste@lesti.hut.fi (Joergen Pihlflyckt)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:29:48 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

>>On all the alarm clocks I've used, pressing the snooze button causes
>>the alarm to go off in nine minutes.  I've always wondered why it's
>>nine minutes, instead of ten, which would be a more intuitive number
>>to ordinary people.

On my alarm clock, it goes off for exactly 512 seconds.
Note that the number of seconds is a power of 2,  easy to
implement in digital electronics. This is equal to  
8 minutes and 32 seconds. Note also that, according
to the manual, the time is _approximately_ 9 minutes.

---

-- 
eMail:        rap@otax.tky.hut.fi      Phone:  (+358-0) 272 6043
          s30809m@saha.hut.fi
Jorgen.Pihlflyckt@hut.fi
From: pjo@conan.cs.hut.fi (Pasi 'PJo' Jokela)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:52:01 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, CS-lab

In <1992Apr12.174859.13643@athena.mit.edu> erspert@athena.mit.edu (Ellen R. Spertus) writes:
> On all the alarm clocks I've used, pressing the snooze button causes
> the alarm to go off in nine minutes.  I've always wondered why it's
> nine minutes, instead of ten, which would be a more intuitive number
> to ordinary people.

 My alarm clock keeps quiet 4 minutes 16 seconds after I yell at it.
If your clock waits 8 minutes 32 seconds after you've silenced it, you
should be able to draw some conclusions.  (Opening the clock won't
probably help a lot unless the clock is _very_ old..:)

	    PJo

-- 
Pasi 'PJo' Jokela - Pasi.Jokela@hut.fi - pjo@vipunen.hut.fi - PJo on IRC
              This is the essence, the death of your soul.
             Elevate your mind, let your body take control.
V'z ebg-13 ivehf. V znxr crbcyr ebg. Pbcl zr gb lbhe .fvt gb vasrpg vg!!
--
Pasi 'PJo' Jokela - Pasi.Jokela@hut.fi - pjo@vipunen.hut.fi - PJo on IRC
              This is the essence, the death of your soul.
             Elevate your mind, let your body take control.
V'z ebg-13 ivehf. V znxr crbcyr ebg. Pbcl zr gb lbhe .fvt gb vasrpg vg!!
From: andyg@hpcvra.cv.hp.com (Andrew Gryc)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:48:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA

I think that an alarm snoozes for 9 minutes because it uses the frequency
of the AC line (60 Hz) as a time measurement, and it is using an 9 bit
counter.  1/60 * 512 = 8.5 minutes, so this is about right.  I remember 
reading this somewhere, but I can't recall exactly where.  I think that
9 minutes was chosen as a human-convienent amount of time to snooze, and 
since it has a machine-convienent representation, most alarm clocks do
it that way.  But I could be wrong.

-----------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Andy Gryc              | Absolutely nothing I say has anything to do with
Hewlett-Packard        | my company in any way.
Corvallis, OR  USA     | (Strong enough disclaimer for you?)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: De-ionized water mishap
Reply-to: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu's message of 4 Apr 92 23:12:11 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
	<1992Apr2.044117.9977@leland.Stanford.EDU>,<1992Apr3.193330.26305@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
	<1992Apr3.200625.28243@cco.caltech.edu>
	<92Apr4.181159est.144362@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 17:45:29 GMT

In article <92Apr4.181159est.144362@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
   carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
   >Most likely because that water was coming from a source that wasn't backflow
   >protected.  Do you really want to drink water that might have made it partway
   >into a chemist's experiment and been returned to the water supply?

   This water would be unsuitable for drinking, but even more unsuitable for
   further use in other experiments.  I'm very sceptical that this could be a
   reason, unless it's just a question of risk analysis (ruining an experiment
   isn't as bad as killing an innocent water drinker).

----
I would guess that the water would probably not do you
any harm, but that in the absence of a sufficient chlorine
residual it would not pass muster according to various
government standards for potable water supplies.  I would
have to be pretty thirsty to test this hypothesis on 
myself, though.  


--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science