 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
I saw burning ethanol once.
...or rather, *didn't* see burning ethanol. It's almost invisible. Which
is quite worrying, when you think about it.
The weirdo patterns on the surface of the liquid were a bit of a
giveaway though...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3 Sep 2009 20:56:26 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>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. :-)
Oops! :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
>
> I saw burning ethanol once.
>
> ...or rather, *didn't* see burning ethanol. It's almost invisible. Which
> is quite worrying, when you think about it.
I always had litres of radio controlled car fuel left over that was too old
to use. That was made from methanol and nitromethane with a bit of oil.
Seeing as you can't just pour it down the drain, I had the great idea of
burning it instead. "Hmm, why won't this stuff light goddamnit, light,
light, OWWWW S!&T it's already burning". The heat haze is another giveaway.
IIRC in some American car racing series they use (or used) methanol as a
fuel, pit-lane refuelling fires must have been fun!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
