On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:21:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 3 Sep 2009 12:17:42 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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

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

> 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] nospamcom> 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

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:15:36 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>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
>

I'll repost this link again but going straight to the relevant paragraph.
http://tinyurl.com/ls34v4

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3 Sep 2009 20:58:25 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>>>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. :-)
>

Do so and report back ;)

>> 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.
>

Not necessarily, remember power transmission is 3 phase and the path could be
between phases.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3 Sep 2009 20:58:45 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> Yes but you Yanks have money to burn :P
>
>Not any more we don't.  We're burning China's money. :P

LOL
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> I always assumed the cables themselves were insulated.
>
> Seriously, are we running uninsulated wires above our roadways?!?!? :o

Yes, just look for "hit power line" on YouTube and you'll see plenty of 
random stuff (mostly trees) touching power lines and sparking or creating 
fires.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers schrieb:
> 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).

I really must object here for nitpicking's sake:


char is /not/ an 8 bit byte.

char instead is a data object /at least/ 8 bit in size and being a 
multiple of the architecture's basic storage unit. The exact size is 
defined in the compiler's <types.h> as CHAR_BIT.

On some exotic 7-bit architecture, for instance, char would have to be 
at least 14 bits in size.

There /are/ real-world architectures that do have 16-bit char types 
because they cannot individually address smaller words.

On such architectures, it is vital to note that sizeof() always returns 
a data object's size in multiples of whatever size a char occupies.


Furthermore, it should be noted that signed char and unsigned char /are/ 
integer types, and so are the short, int, long and long long types (both 
unsigned and signed, even if not explicitly qualified as such).


And no, "int" it is /not/ a register-sized word, but rather an integer 
occupying (but not necessarily fully utilizing) at least the "natural 
size suggested by the architecture of the execution environment", while 
at the same time guaranteeing to store any integer number in the range 
from -32767 (sic!) to 32767, with the exact limits being defined as 
INT_MIN and INT_MAX in <types.h>.


C data types can be real fun once you're leaving the safety of 
mainstream PC architecture :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:55:22 +0200, "Fredrik Eriksson"
<fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:

>>> That depends on the flame.
>>>
>>
>> Yip! A thermite lance or a nova will do it ;)
>
>A match will do just as well.

I was talking about the specific case of petrol vapour from a pump/fuel tank in
the open air.
Of course petrol is inflammable but in the above circumstance the air/vapour mix
goes from too rich to too lean very quickly.
Trust me :) I used to be in charge of a Fire and Gas section when I worked on an
Oil Rig. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:45:39 +0200, "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:

>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.
> 
Different circumstances, when you are trying to do it deliberately you can find
the right air/fuel mix by moving the match about. I bet if there had been a
strong wind it would have been very hard to light. And this is not because the
wind is blowing the flame out.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> C data types can be real fun once you're leaving the safety of 
> mainstream PC architecture :-P

Indeed. Considering that C is supposedly *the* language for writing 
low-level code, I find it quite surprising that it provides absolutely 
no way to select a binary number of a specific size. It doesn't even 
seem to provide a vague suggestion of what size you're going to get; 
it's just random pot luck with each compiler you try...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:
> Indeed. Considering that C is supposedly *the* language for writing 
> low-level code, I find it quite surprising that it provides absolutely 
> no way to select a binary number of a specific size.

That's actually its strength... until it comes to interfacing with the 
outside world, which is where things tend to get ugly.

Not commonly known, C99 also specifies that <stdint.h> shall contain 
typedefs for various integers to be used in case a particular size is 
desired:

- intN_t / uintN_t (e.g. int8_t) for exact size:

These are optional, unfortunately, but it makes sense considering that 
some architecture may have a bigger smallest-addressable-word size.

- int_leastN_t / uint_leastN_t for a certain minimum size:

These are mandatory at least for 8, 16, 32 and 64 bit.

- int_fastN_t / uint_fastN_t for fastest type of mininum size:

These are mandatory at least for 8, 16, 32 and 64 bit.


> It doesn't even 
> seem to provide a vague suggestion of what size you're going to get; 
> it's just random pot luck with each compiler you try...

Oh yes, it does: <types.h> gives you all you need to know about your 
int, short, long etc.

Well, /almost/ all: For some weird reason nobody seemes to have bothered 
mandating a standard #define to figure whether you're on a big-endian or 
little-endian machine.

Post a reply to this message

>> Indeed. Considering that C is supposedly *the* language for writing 
>> low-level code, I find it quite surprising that it provides absolutely 
>> no way to select a binary number of a specific size.
> 
> That's actually its strength... until it comes to interfacing with the 
> outside world, which is where things tend to get ugly.

And given that currently the number one use for C is to interface with 
the outside world... strange choice, that.

> Not commonly known, C99 also specifies that <stdint.h> shall contain 
> typedefs for various integers to be used in case a particular size is 
> desired:
> 
> - intN_t / uintN_t (e.g. int8_t) for exact size:
> 
> These are optional, unfortunately, but it makes sense considering that 
> some architecture may have a bigger smallest-addressable-word size.
> 
> - int_leastN_t / uint_leastN_t for a certain minimum size:
> 
> These are mandatory at least for 8, 16, 32 and 64 bit.
> 
> - int_fastN_t / uint_fastN_t for fastest type of mininum size:
> 
> These are mandatory at least for 8, 16, 32 and 64 bit.

Mmm, interesting. (But, presumably, unused?)

>> It doesn't even seem to provide a vague suggestion of what size you're 
>> going to get; it's just random pot luck with each compiler you try...
> 
> Oh yes, it does: <types.h> gives you all you need to know about your 
> int, short, long etc.
> 
> Well, /almost/ all: For some weird reason nobody seemes to have bothered 
> mandating a standard #define to figure whether you're on a big-endian or 
> little-endian machine.

I don't see anything useful listed - unless I'm looking at the wrong file...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:
>> That's actually its strength... until it comes to interfacing with the 
>> outside world, which is where things tend to get ugly.
> 
> And given that currently the number one use for C is to interface with 
> the outside world... strange choice, that.

I'd say its number one use is for embedded systems, which typically have 
a very limited interface to the outside world.


> I don't see anything useful listed - unless I'm looking at the wrong 
> file...

Oops - you're looking at the wrong file indeed, but that's my fault: Try 
<limits.h> instead of <types.h> - sorry :-)

<float.h> does the same for floating-point types, by the way.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:00:00 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> 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...

Possibly, but then works of literature often speak differently to 
different people....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:35:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 3 Sep 2009 20:56:26 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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! :)

Yeah, that was a fun one, but turned out to be a simple solution.  Just 
had to increase the timeout on the CAPTURE command (this was a NetWare 
2.15 system).  The systems were slow enough that they'd generate part of 
the print out, send it, and then generate the next part.  Each part 
generally took about 20 seconds to generate, and the default timeout IIRC 
was 5 or 10 seconds.

Ah, the good old days. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:56:16 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>Interesting, I hadn't noticed that - but I hadn't really thought to
>>look. :-)
>>
> Do so and report back ;)

Just need one thing - a plane ticket. :-)

> Not necessarily, remember power transmission is 3 phase and the path
> could be between phases.

Hmmm, I hadn't thought about that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> 
>> The initial oxide layer. It slows further oxygen access to the bulk
>> beneath.
>> Aluminium oxide is particularly effective at this - many high-temperature
>> alloys are designed with this phenomenon in mind.
> 
> The oxide layer also doesn't flake off like, say, iron oxide. So no
> fresh metal is exposed.
> 

Unless you expose it to mercury, then it flakes off as fast as it forms.

Post a reply to this message

>> The oxide layer also doesn't flake off like, say, iron oxide. So no
>> fresh metal is exposed.
> 
> Unless you expose it to mercury, then it flakes off as fast as it forms.

Let us hope the rain doesn't contain any mercury...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Another film thoroughly worth missing - although at least parts of it 
> made sense. 

What you have to realize is this was a special effects movie. It was the 
first time they had realistic zero-G effects. The first use of matte 
paintings (where you could see in through the windows of a spaceship that's 
actually just a model, for example), and so on.

Watch it again with that in mind, and you realize why they spend 20 or 30 
seconds of screen time just filming a floating pen.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> 
>> C data types can be real fun once you're leaving the safety of 
>> mainstream PC architecture :-P
> 
> Indeed. Considering that C is supposedly *the* language for writing 
> low-level code, I find it quite surprising that it provides absolutely 
> no way to select a binary number of a specific size. 

That's what Ada is for.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Invisible schrieb:
>> Indeed. Considering that C is supposedly *the* language for writing 
>> low-level code, I find it quite surprising that it provides absolutely 
>> no way to select a binary number of a specific size.
> 
> That's actually its strength... 

Huh? How do you come up with that as a strength?

I would far rather say "I want an integer with a range of 0 to 1,000,000" 
than try to find the project-specific typedef du jour that says the same thing.

> Not commonly known, C99 also specifies that <stdint.h> shall contain 
> typedefs for various integers to be used in case a particular size is 
> desired:
> 
> - intN_t / uintN_t (e.g. int8_t) for exact size:

Yeah, works great until you use a compiler that doesn't support it, or a 
project written to work on a compiler that doesn't assume you have support 
for it. Then you have to pick out each typedef one at a time, because C only 
took 30 years to decide on how to name an integer in a portable way.

>> It doesn't even seem to provide a vague suggestion of what size you're 
>> going to get; it's just random pot luck with each compiler you try...
> 
> Oh yes, it does: <types.h> gives you all you need to know about your 
> int, short, long etc.

Except that's the utterly wrong bass-ackwards way to do it. I don't want you 
to tell me what sizes I'm allowed to use, and then have me write code to 
instruct the compiler as to which I want. I want to tell you what my program 
requires and have the compiler generate the f'ing code it needs to.

I am just glad that given the PDP-8 was segmented we didn't wind up with two 
different kinds of "while" statement: one with a body that fit in a short 
jump and one with a body that fit in the range of a long jump, along with a 
header file telling us how many bytes can fit in a short jump.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> The oxide layer also doesn't flake off like, say, iron oxide. So no
> >> fresh metal is exposed.
> > 
> > Unless you expose it to mercury, then it flakes off as fast as it forms.

> Let us hope the rain doesn't contain any mercury...

  I think that if it does, we have bigger problems than electric wires
losing their covering layers...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Invisible schrieb:
>>> That's actually its strength... until it comes to interfacing with 
>>> the outside world, which is where things tend to get ugly.
>>
>> And given that currently the number one use for C is to interface with 
>> the outside world... strange choice, that.
> 
> I'd say its number one use is for embedded systems, which typically have 
> a very limited interface to the outside world.

I would have to disagree. I think google has a much more limited interface 
to the outside world than a set top box or an iPhone does, in the sense that 
you're talking.

The iPhone has half a dozen pieces of custom hardware. Set top boxes talk to 
tuners, hardware decoders, etc. Google? They just talk TCP and disk files.

> <float.h> does the same for floating-point types, by the way.

A) Assuming it's there, and B) assuming it tells you the information you 
need in a way you can use it portably. Pick out the best type given an 
arbitrary requirement on precision and accuracy and range, and know you got 
it right for all compilers. Go for it. (Indeed, it even assumes a specific 
floating point representation.)

And where's <decimal.h>.  Oh, I forgot, C's type system sucks and doesn't 
handle fixed-point.  :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> pit-lane refuelling fires must have been fun!

Yes. THe official hand signal a driver uses to indicate he's on fire is to 
run around in circles waving his hands up and down over his head. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > Another film thoroughly worth missing - although at least parts of it 
> > made sense. 

> What you have to realize is this was a special effects movie. It was the 
> first time they had realistic zero-G effects. The first use of matte 
> paintings (where you could see in through the windows of a spaceship that's 
> actually just a model, for example), and so on.

> Watch it again with that in mind, and you realize why they spend 20 or 30 
> seconds of screen time just filming a floating pen.

  What I dislike about the movie is that it's a very good story and it makes
a lot of sense, up until that craziness at the end. What I dislike about it
is that the craziness at the end has *no* meaning at all. It's not like the
writers came up with some kind of deep message and a highly abstract way of
expressing it, letting it to the viewer to figure out what the message is.
No, it was purely random, with no message, no logic, nothing. The only
purpose of the ending was to screw up with the mind of the viewers, hoping
to put them in a wild goose chase trying to decipher a message and meaning
which simply isn't there.

  It's a kind of anticlimax.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4 Sep 2009 10:45:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Just need one thing - a plane ticket. :-)

:)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > I'd say its number one use is for embedded systems, which typically have 
> > a very limited interface to the outside world.

> I would have to disagree. I think google has a much more limited interface 
> to the outside world than a set top box or an iPhone does, in the sense that 
> you're talking.

> The iPhone has half a dozen pieces of custom hardware. Set top boxes talk to 
> tuners, hardware decoders, etc. Google? They just talk TCP and disk files.

  I think the iPhone blurs the distinction between "embedded system" and
just portable computer.

  How do you define "embedded system"? I'd say the iPhone is more a portable
computer. It's very small in physical size, but that alone doesn't make it
"embedded".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   What I dislike about the movie is that it's a very good story and it makes
> a lot of sense, up until that craziness at the end. What I dislike about it
> is that the craziness at the end has *no* meaning at all. 

Possibly true. I believe the book may have retconned a meaning into it, and 
the sequels definitely are based on the ending of the movie/book. But the 
story in the *movie* was definitely secondary to the special effects.

>   It's a kind of anticlimax.

It did end poorly. Indeed, it probably would have been more satisfying to 
just end it with "My god, it's full of stars", and cut out the bits after 
the pyrotechnics reflected in the helmet entirely.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 09/04/09 10:58, Warp wrote:
>    What I dislike about the movie is that it's a very good story and it makes
> a lot of sense, up until that craziness at the end. What I dislike about it
> is that the craziness at the end has *no* meaning at all. It's not like the
> writers came up with some kind of deep message and a highly abstract way of
> expressing it, letting it to the viewer to figure out what the message is.
> No, it was purely random, with no message, no logic, nothing. The only
> purpose of the ending was to screw up with the mind of the viewers, hoping
> to put them in a wild goose chase trying to decipher a message and meaning
> which simply isn't there.
>
>    It's a kind of anticlimax.

	Well, it's all about expectations. In a sense, it "makes sense" that it 
doesn't make sense. Not everything in the universe was designed to be 
intelligible to humans.

	I suppose I could sympathize, though. I feel that way about many movies 
(Robert Rodriguez, some of Tarantino's work, most of the Coen brothers' 
movies). Not from the unintelligible aspect, but from the "let's throw 
in some randomness/weird stuff and everyone will think it's cool/deep" 
sense.

-- 
People who don't eat yogurt are uncultured.

Post a reply to this message