Jump to content

Useless Information - Trivia


Hagar

Recommended Posts

 My daughter often refers to me as a Walking Encyclopedia of Useless Knowledge.  That saId, I figured this would be a great Forum thread.  Probably easy to use the internet, but give folks a chance, say a week.  If you know, or think you know, PM me with the answer.  I’ll acknowledge the winner, and the winner will get a prize (a Mason jar of fresh Evadale air you can breathe to your hearts content).  
😂😂😂 👽👽👽😂😂😂

First question - What made the expression “10-4” famous?

 

Btw, my opinion is final unless someone flat proves me wrong, cause it’s based on my knowledge, or lack thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We used to dispatch many/most police calls in 10 codes.

We were supposed to transition away from 10 codes a couple of decades ago but a few still linger.

 With my badge number… “184 10-17, in reference to 10-15 with possible 10-32”

Now it would be… “184 speak to John Smith in reference to a disturbance with a person,  possibly armed with a knife”

What mostly changed is that the types of calls or most no longer in code. Like 10-10/Fight, 10-15/Distbance, etc. although a 10-50/Vehicle accident is still common. If you told one of our officers today to check on a 10-15 with possible 10-10, you would probably just as well be speaking Japanese.

Codes that my agency (and all police agencies are different in codes, policy and culture) still uses to make it short, sweet and with no ambiguity are like 10-32 (supposed to mean armed person but most often a firearm) or 10–18 (quickly as possible). If an officer says I need EMS 10-18, it means a person needs medical assistance 5 minutes ago. When the football player Hamlin went down last night on Monday Night Football, that would be EMS 10-18. 

If it is in reference to the officer himself it typically means I am in deep trouble like Help 10-18 or I need backup 10-18…. usually accompanied by his/her voice going up an octave or two.

9-11 demonstrated the problem with codes as multiple agencies were talking in code probably without realizing that there are several different codes including 10 codes. Some agencies use the words like Code or Signal such as Signal Zero or Code 4 to differentiate from 10 codes. My department has a 5 code for a call disposition with 5 always being the first number like 518 or 521. It means nothing to anyone else. A 518 is short for, see report or, I am writing a report in reference to my call such as robbery, burglary, etc. A 521 means, settled or…. I dealt with these two idiots and I got them to calm down with no more intervention needed. :)

Back when codes first came out (1930s) and most police agencies could only talk to themselves, it really didn’t matter what a code meant. When I retired 18 months ago I had something like 64 radio channels to speak to any fire department, police department, chemical plant emergency operations, etc. in this area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The winner, tvc184 (another old timer).  Back in the 50’s there was a tv series called Highway Patrol with Broadwick Crawford.  He’d start raining out 10-4’s so much you’d feel the spittle on your face, lol.

And that my friends is useless information, lol.  It’s hard to find a question not easily assessable to a Google lookup.  I’ll work on another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hagar said:

The winner, tvc184 (another old timer).  Back in the 50’s there was a tv series called Highway Patrol with Broadwick Crawford.  He’d start raining out 10-4’s so much you’d feel the spittle on your face, lol.

And that my friends is useless information, lol.  It’s hard to find a question not easily assessable to a Google lookup.  I’ll work on another.

I also remember Car 54, Where Are You? It was the first place that I remember seeing Herman Munster when he was just Officer Muldoon.

 When I first started on patrol we didn’t have badge numbers and only went by our unit number. I was assigned to Car 84. 🙂 🙃

And they probably never knew where I was….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And speaking of badge numbers….

About 4 years after I started, we finally got a computer system and started issuing permanent badge numbers beginning with 110 and progressing by seniority. Originally the numbers 96-99 were reserved for the command staff. The 96, 97 and 98 were division commanders and 99 was the chief. Those were not permanent badge numbers but just a means of knowing who was doing the talking.

My permanent badge number picked by seniority? 184… which is coincidentally part of my screen name. So my original unit number 84 eventually became my permanent badge number of 184. 
 

When a few years later we got semi-permanent locker and mailbox numbers after I left detectives, I was assigned 84.

And when was I hired? January, 1984 or…. 1/84. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I also remember Car 54, Where Are You? It was the first place that I remember seeing Herman Munster when he was just Officer Muldoon.

 When I first started on patrol we didn’t have badge numbers and only went by our unit number. I was assigned to Car 84. 🙂 🙃

And they probably never knew where I was….

…..and “Ooh Ooh” Gunther Toody

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I also remember Car 54, Where Are You? It was the first place that I remember seeing Herman Munster when he was just Officer Muldoon.

 When I first started on patrol we didn’t have badge numbers and only went by our unit number. I was assigned to Car 84. 🙂 🙃

And they probably never knew where I was….

I still remember all the words to the Car 54 song.  What happened yesterday?  Don’t have a clue, lol.  More useless knowledge..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s one that’ll send y’all running to Google.

When the Beatles first got to #1 on the charts with “I Want To Hold Your Hand”, they retained #1 in England until what song/group took over with ******* %%% §§§§ by ¥¥¥ §§§§§§§§.

Hint, was an English group.  Btw, heard this many years ago via Al Caldwell, so the right (?) answer is based on that and my feeble memory.  Good luck with that, lmbo.  Google may be different but we’re going with Caldwell & Hager’s memory.  
😂😂😂👽👽👽😂😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hagar said:

Here’s one that’ll send y’all running to Google.

When the Beatles first got to #1 on the charts with “I Want To Hold Your Hand”, they retained #1 in England until what song/group took over with ******* %%% §§§§ by ¥¥¥ §§§§§§§§.

Hint, was an English group.  Btw, heard this many years ago via Al Caldwell, so the right (?) answer is based on that and my feeble memory.  Good luck with that, lmbo.  Google may be different but we’re going with Caldwell & Hager’s memory.  
😂😂😂👽👽👽😂😂😂

I’ll guess The Rolling Stones with “Satisfaction”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...