![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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. This is not an implementation of your "alternative
hypothesis", as it has nothing to do with intelligence.
Escapism can be good for some people, and for some people, the show
worked for that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:05:32 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> 101 isn't usually the "for noobs" section, but rather the "first course
> appropriate for college" level.
Well, maybe not now, but when I was in college, PS101 was colloquially
referred to as "Bonehead Chemistry". ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:06:16 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Maybe the first unis that did this figured people were Pascal-based
>> rather than C-based. (Pascal, IIRC, starts arrays at '1', C starts at
>> '0').
>
> As *I* remember, Pascal arrays start at whatever index you tell them to
> start at. (E.g, you can make the first index be 17 if you want...)
>
> VAR stuff : ARRAY [17..21] OF INT;
I was thinking positions for a string. In Pascal, using the string
"abcdef", position 1 is "a". In C, it's position 0.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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. 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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp <war### [at] tag povray org> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
> > One thing I haven't figured out is why poisonous prey animals (frogs,
> > butterflies, etc) wind up being brightly colored.
>
> AFAIK the bright colors work as a warning signal. Predators learn to
> distinguish the poisonous prey by their color.
>
> It would make little sense to just have poison but otherwise look edible.
> Both predator and prey get killed. With a warning color both live.
>
> (By this logic it would follow that some species mimic the color of
> poisonous species. I wonder if there are examples of this.)
>
> --
> - Warp
The viceroy butterfly mimics the poisonous monarch butterfly for protection from
predators. Its fairly common among many species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batesian_mimicry
Isaac.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:07:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> Are mushrooms poisonous on purpose, or by accident?
>>
>> That implies a will behind their creation. And not all mushrooms are
>> poisonous. Take the ones that I had on my hamburger last night.....
>> ;-)
>
> No it doesn't.
Yes, it does. "On purpose" implies an intelligence is behind their
creation, purposefully making them the way they are.
> 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?
Perhaps some of both.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
>> One thing I haven't figured out is why poisonous prey animals (frogs,
>> butterflies, etc) wind up being brightly colored.
>
> 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.
> It would make little sense to just have poison but otherwise look edible.
> Both predator and prey get killed. With a warning color both live.
So which evolved first? At some point, you're poisonous enough to make the
predator sick, but bright enough to be easily found? I understand the
hand-waving explanation. It's the details I don't really follow.
> (By this logic it would follow that some species mimic the color of
> poisonous species. I wonder if there are examples of this.)
Yes, quite a few. Both monarch butterflies (and their immitators) and that
kind of snake with the red/black/yellow stripes whose name I forget springs
to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batesian_mimicry
Oh, there's the snake. GIYF. Can you tell which is poisonous and which
isn't? Notice the different order of the stripes.
http://www.pestproducts.com/images/coral.jpg
http://www.pestproducts.com/images/sckng.jpg
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:37:20 +0200, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Actually it is quite hard to ignite petrol from a petrol pump with a
> naked flame.
That depends on the 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. I once saw a petrol pump attendant put
> a lit cigarette into the mouth of a full petrol tank.
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/mpmain.html#cigarettes
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:55:43 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> 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.
It works perfectly if the predator does not eat the prey himself, but
instead feeds his offspring with it.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |