 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:21:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 3 Sep 2009 12:17:42 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>>and software like Harvard Graphics
>
> A rave from the grave :)
Indeed - I remember the classes on that (not that I took them, but I
worked in the computer lab so helped students who were having problems),
it was really interesting.
One of the things that made it interesting was that each table had two
printers on it that shared a print queue. The way HG would print, you
could end up with half the graphic on one printer, and half on the
other. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:25:51 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 3 Sep 2009 11:54:01 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:14:41 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> Rain water isn't chemically pure. (Depending on pollution levels.)
>>> Once the pylon gets wet, it's entire surface is covered in a
>>> continuous sheet of water, which also covers all of the cables. So why
>>> don't they short out?
>>
>>Because the bare wire isn't exposed, it's insulated.
>
> Not on this side of the pond, Jim.
Interesting, I hadn't noticed that - but I hadn't really thought to
look. :-)
>>And in order to
>>short out, you have to have a path for electrons to flow. Arguably it
>>would take a pretty strong rainstorm to give the current someplace to go
>>to.
>>
>>
> I think he means jump or track to.
Yeah, but it still would want to go to ground, and the water doesn't
provide a grounding influence that's stronger than staying with the wire.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:27:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 3 Sep 2009 11:58:49 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:06:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> So it is much simplier
>>> and cheaper for overhead cables to be left bare and make sure that
>>> there is a lot of space between them.
>>
>>Weird, over here, the power lines are insulated....
>>
>>
> Yes but you Yanks have money to burn :P
Not any more we don't. We're burning China's money. :P
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Why do some people like the X-Files?
>>
>> Because it's cool. The whole UFO "I want to believe" mantra as well
>> as the "Trust no one" conspiracionist theories were all around in the
>> 90s...
>
> I just don't see the point.
>
> Each episode, something happens which makes absolutely no sense. It's
> not that it's "mysterious", it's just nonsensical. Molder and Scully
> investigate. A series of utterly incomprehensible events occur. It turns
> out that the conspiracy was actually a conspiracy to create a conspiracy
> that would make people think the conspiracy was actually a conspiracy
> about a conspiracy to create a conspiracy. But then that turns out to be
> wrong too. And after about an hour of abject failure to make any kind of
> weakly comprehendable sense, the show ends.
I never liked the X-Files until I read an interview with Chris Carter
(the guy who created the show) back in the 90s about how he was affected
by the Watergate scandal. The growing public sense of outrage over the
fact that the administration had been lying and deceiving them for
years... before then, there was a great deal more public trust in our
elected officials, but Watergate officially marked the beginning of the
modern age of cynicism in politics.
All of that really shows in the X-Files, as the show isn't really about
aliens, but about a conspiracy. From that point of view, the show is
quite enjoyable and interesting. As sci fi, it's really not very good.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:27:43 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Some tiny minority of the population, perhaps. But that wouldn't explain
>> it being so popular.
>
> If it was popular, then by definition it was understood by most of those
> who watched it.
You're assuming that you have to understand something to enjoy it. As
exhibit A that this is not the case, may I present "2001"? :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Ah, the days of plain ASCII, before anybody spoke of Unicode. Hey, wait
> a sec - C is *still* back in the days of plain ASCII...
Only if you assume 'char' to be a text character, rather than an 8 bit
byte (which is what it really is, just as 'int' isn't really a true
integer, but rather a register-sized word on whatever machine you're
compiling for).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Did mushrooms evolve to be poisonous because that's advantageous
> somehow? Or do they just happen to be poisonous to animals because of
> their unusual chemistry?
Or did animals eat all the non-poisonous mushrooms, leaving only the
poisonous ones to reproduce?
One of the biggest misunderstandings about evolution is the nature of
"natural selection." The word "selection" implies an active force
(which most people assume it is), while really it's an effect of the
system rather than a force for change.
It's the difference between cause and effect.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> AFAIK the bright colors work as a warning signal. Predators learn to
>> distinguish the poisonous prey by their color.
>
> This clearly works poorly if the prey is so poisonous they kill the
> predator with one meal.
You're assuming that for this to be an effective evolutionary strategy
(there's that entanglement with 'cause', again), it has to be effective
for individuals.
An evolutionary strategy can be effective for groups, while failing
horribly for individuals.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> There are insulators between the cables and pylons so there is no path for the
> electricity to flow there. The conductors are spaced far enough apart so that
> the electricity cannot jump between them. This is called engineering. ;)
I always assumed the cables themselves were insulated.
Seriously, are we running uninsulated wires above our roadways?!?!? :o
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Not any more we don't. We're burning China's money. :P
I thought they were burning ours at this point? :o
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
