 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:15:36 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmail com>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> How do you define "embedded system"?
I've been thinking about that.
One could say it's a computer with no user-visible UI, like a chip running
you car's engine. Now, what happens when you're talking about (say) a
missile launcher? Clearly that's going to have a UI, and just as clearly
that's an embedded system. However, looking at the chip running your car's
engine, I imagine it's talking to a lot more "outside world" than a google
server is, just in terms of having to be able to do byte-level hardware
programming.
Or one could say it's a computer with no ability for the user to decide what
code runs on it, which would make something like a "dumb phone" an embedded
system. I.e., if in coding it up you don't have to worry about any sort of
security, I'd say it's an embedded system. Not perfect, but close.
Right now, I'm working on a box with built in hardware decoding for various
media types, DMA channels that have to get programmed, etc. I'm porting
webkit to it, and it's running Linux. It's a lump of black plastic whose
only feedback to the user is an LED on the front I can turn different
colors. Is that "embedded"?
> 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".
Nevertheless, the code there talks to the "outside world" far more than
something like google's servers, in terms of finicky technology.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:00:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2009 10:45:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>>Just need one thing - a plane ticket. :-)
>
> :)
Well, and the money for a plane ticket. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.
That line was actually not in the first movie at all. It was in the book,
and it was put in the sequel movie.
--
- 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. It's not like the
> writers came up with some kind of deep message and a highly abstract way of
What about the intro? That was, IIRC the only reference to the monolith
in the entire movie ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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. :-)
>
No, that's called panicking :-D
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> What about the intro? That was, IIRC the only reference to the monolith
> in the entire movie ...
Some people say that they find the intro incomprehensible, or at least
very hard to understand. I don't know why. I find it quite easy to
understand.
Two tribes of some pre-human species are having a squirmish about a pond
of water. Then the loser tribe is hanging around when the weird monolith
appears, and after touching it they start realizing that they could use
bones as weapons, and they take the pond back. Cue a transition from a
bone thrown into the air to a spaceship. Both tools of some kind. The
inference is rather clear.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That line was actually not in the first movie at all. It was in the book,
> and it was put in the sequel movie.
I did not know that. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> What about the intro? That was, IIRC the only reference to the monolith
> in the entire movie ...
Huh? No. There's a monolith on the moon, and one on one of saturn's moons.
Maybe I'm just projecting the book into the movie, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> 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. :-)
>>
> No, that's called panicking :-D
I'm completely serious. Just like the official sign for a scuba diver
having trouble on the surface is to rip off your mask, wave your hands
around, and splash a bunch, screaming.
Just because it's official doesn't mean it has to be illogical. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:26:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> That line was actually not in the first movie at all. It was in the
>> book,
>> and it was put in the sequel movie.
>
> I did not know that. :-)
My recollection had been different as well, but Wikipedia confirms this
(useful list of differences between the film and the book).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Some people say that they find the intro incomprehensible, or at least
> very hard to understand. I don't know why. I find it quite easy to
> understand.
>
> Two tribes of some pre-human species are having a squirmish about a pond
> of water. Then the loser tribe is hanging around when the weird monolith
> appears, and after touching it they start realizing that they could use
> bones as weapons, and they take the pond back. Cue a transition from a
> bone thrown into the air to a spaceship. Both tools of some kind. The
> inference is rather clear.
Dunno, it seemed rather disconnected from the rest of the film, imo.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> What about the intro? That was, IIRC the only reference to the
>> monolith in the entire movie ...
>
> Huh? No. There's a monolith on the moon, and one on one of saturn's moons.
>
> Maybe I'm just projecting the book into the movie, tho.
>
I don't recall the monolith being on the moon... Then again, I have
slept a few times since seeing the movie, so maybe I'm wrong.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm completely serious. Just like the official sign for a scuba diver
> having trouble on the surface is to rip off your mask, wave your hands
> around, and splash a bunch, screaming.
The emergency gesture underwater must be one of the most confusing ever:
It's the "thumbs up" gesture.
The gesture which indicates that everything is ok is, not surprisingly,
the "ok" gesture, but the "thumbs up" gesture is also so commonly used for
"everything's ok" in other settings that some people get confused about it.
There was an incident related to this during the filming of one of the
Harry Potter movies. While filming an underwater scene, after the scene
was done, Daniel Radcliffe made the "thums up" gesture to indicate that
everything went perfect. Of course the safety divers around didn't take
any chances and rushed to help him and get him to safety.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Some people say that they find the intro incomprehensible, or at least
> > very hard to understand. I don't know why. I find it quite easy to
> > understand.
> >
> > Two tribes of some pre-human species are having a squirmish about a pond
> > of water. Then the loser tribe is hanging around when the weird monolith
> > appears, and after touching it they start realizing that they could use
> > bones as weapons, and they take the pond back. Cue a transition from a
> > bone thrown into the air to a spaceship. Both tools of some kind. The
> > inference is rather clear.
> Dunno, it seemed rather disconnected from the rest of the film, imo.
Even after the explanation?
I think it fits perfectly within the story. It explains (to a degree)
what the monolith is (ie. some kind of alien device which triggered the
human species to become intelligent). Without that intro the monolith would
be completely unexplained and not related to anything.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:50:03 -0400, Warp wrote:
> The emergency gesture underwater must be one of the most confusing
> ever:
> It's the "thumbs up" gesture.
I understand what it is that makes it confusing, but it also kinda makes
sense - a "thumbs up" gesture is a way of pointing up, as if to say "I'm
going up" or "I need to surface".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:52:56 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I think it fits perfectly within the story. It explains (to a degree)
> what the monolith is (ie. some kind of alien device which triggered the
> human species to become intelligent). Without that intro the monolith
> would be completely unexplained and not related to anything.
Agreed, it's kinda saying "the monolith helped humans evolve before, and
now it's initiating another evolution".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:26:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
> > Warp wrote:
> >> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> That line was actually not in the first movie at all. It was in the
> >> book,
> >> and it was put in the sequel movie.
> >
> > I did not know that. :-)
>
> My recollection had been different as well, but Wikipedia confirms this
> (useful list of differences between the film and the book).
I rather like the sequel. Different film entirely, of course, but it retains the
sense of mystery and grandeur. And I just love the final shot - the process
depicted at the start of 2001 is waiting to happen all over again on Europa.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:05:00 -0400, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I rather like the sequel. Different film entirely, of course, but it
> retains the sense of mystery and grandeur. And I just love the final
> shot - the process depicted at the start of 2001 is waiting to happen
> all over again on Europa.
Yeah, I liked that as well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > The emergency gesture underwater must be one of the most confusing
> > ever:
> > It's the "thumbs up" gesture.
> I understand what it is that makes it confusing, but it also kinda makes
> sense - a "thumbs up" gesture is a way of pointing up, as if to say "I'm
> going up" or "I need to surface".
Yes, but couldn't they have chosen a gesture which is *not* commonly used
for "everything's fine" in other situations?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:21:23 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > The emergency gesture underwater must be one of the most confusing
>> > ever:
>> > It's the "thumbs up" gesture.
>
>> I understand what it is that makes it confusing, but it also kinda
>> makes sense - a "thumbs up" gesture is a way of pointing up, as if to
>> say "I'm going up" or "I need to surface".
>
> Yes, but couldn't they have chosen a gesture which is *not* commonly
> used
> for "everything's fine" in other situations?
Sure, they could have. But they didn't....I could always ask a couple
friends of mine who are divers what the rationale is (if they know).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The emergency gesture underwater must be one of the most confusing ever:
> It's the "thumbs up" gesture.
That's not exactly "emergency", but rather just "go more shallow". Doesn't
even mean "go to the surface." (Depending on the emergency (out of air, too
cold, lost weights, etc) you have different signs.)
Thumbs up with your other palm flat on top means "Stop going up here" for
example. As in, "we need to stop here to decompress" rather than just "level
off for a while, there's something I want to see."
But I'll agree that even after dozens of dives I still sometimes used
thumbs-up to mean OK. And I can perfectly understand safety people taking a
thumbs-up to mean "I need help getting to the surface."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Yes, but couldn't they have chosen a gesture which is *not* commonly used
> for "everything's fine" in other situations?
Well, in addition, thumbs down means go deeper. So it's nicely symetrical.
Maybe two-fingers-up vs two-fingers-down would have made more sense, tho.
I'm more amused by some of the standard signs for underwater wildlife, myself.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > > The emergency gesture underwater must be one of the most confusing
> > > ever:
> > > It's the "thumbs up" gesture.
>
> > I understand what it is that makes it confusing, but it also kinda makes
> > sense - a "thumbs up" gesture is a way of pointing up, as if to say "I'm
> > going up" or "I need to surface".
>
> Yes, but couldn't they have chosen a gesture which is *not* commonly used
> for "everything's fine" in other situations?
BTW, I guess I finally understand the ending scene of Terminator 2. Arnold was
actually calling for help! :))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
