 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 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.
Well, I'm talking about color plus poison. I'm assuming the two are
independent, since so many species have both.
Of course, it could be that the mutation to be more visible came first and
only the distasteful individual survived that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> It's the difference between cause and effect.
I remember once commenting something about poison ivy, and someone
responding that poison ivy is that way because it is the first plant to grow
back after a major fire. I asked "Why would being poisonous make you grow
back first." They pointed out I had cause/effect reverse. D'oh!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 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
Only if our money was real.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:05:56 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> 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"? :)
I actually understood that movie, mostly. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:04:42 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> As sci fi, it's really not very good.
This is, sadly, very true. The characters were pretty well written, and
that's what carried the show. It certainly wasn't any of the story arcs,
he was just making it up as he went along. Continuity? Nah, there
really wasn't any. :-)
It's a pity that his other shows did so poorly.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:20:58 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> 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
Only when we've paid it back.....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:05:56 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>> 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"? :)
>
> I actually understood that movie, mostly. :-)
Sure, and I did, too... at least, *I* think I did :)
I have a hunch that if you ask five fans what the movie was about,
you'll get five different answer...
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually it is quite hard to ignite petrol from a petrol pump with a naked
> flame.
> Besides having a LEL (Lower Explosive Limit) petrol has an Upper Explosive
> Limit
> (UEL) where above that level the gas/air mixture is too rich to burn. In
> the
> open air the gas/air mixture goes from too rich to too leen very quickly.
Funny, I always managed to light open containers of petrol *very* easily :-)
There's no huge explosion or fireball, just a nice steadily burning flame
from the top.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Those are cables for underground power transmission. They need an awful
> lot of insulation I bet. So overhead lines are likely to be a good deal
> thinner.
And because of the huge amount of insulation and armour they cannot
dissipate heat very well, so the core conductor needs to be much thicker
than in an overhead line.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 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"? :)
Another film thoroughly worth missing - although at least parts of it
made sense. The X-Files failed to make even that much sense...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
