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

On 4 Sep 2009 12:41:02 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>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. ;-)
>

What! More begging letters ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:36:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>Well, and the money for a plane ticket. ;-)
>>
> What! More begging letters ;)

Oh, no, I wouldn't do that. ;-)  Of course, if someone were to make a 
donation, that would certainly speed things up. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4 Sep 2009 17:39:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:36:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Well, and the money for a plane ticket. ;-)
>>>
>> What! More begging letters ;)
>
>Oh, no, I wouldn't do that. ;-)  Of course, if someone were to make a 
>donation, that would certainly speed things up. ;-)
>

I left my donation buried in the field, marked with a stick with a handkerchief
tied round it.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:54:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 4 Sep 2009 17:39:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:36:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, and the money for a plane ticket. ;-)
>>>>
>>> What! More begging letters ;)
>>
>>Oh, no, I wouldn't do that. ;-)  Of course, if someone were to make a
>>donation, that would certainly speed things up. ;-)
>>
>>
> I left my donation buried in the field, marked with a stick with a
> handkerchief tied round it.

LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 00:59:05 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:54:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 4 Sep 2009 17:39:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:36:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Well, and the money for a plane ticket. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> What! More begging letters ;)
>>>
>>>Oh, no, I wouldn't do that. ;-)  Of course, if someone were to make a
>>>donation, that would certainly speed things up. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I left my donation buried in the field, marked with a stick with a
>> handkerchief tied round it.
>
>LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>

No, it is a traditional crock of gold.

You just have to find it ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:02:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>>
>>
> No, it is a traditional crock of gold.
> 
> You just have to find it ;)

You wouldn't want to give me a clue, would you? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 01:33:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:02:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> No, it is a traditional crock of gold.
>> 
>> You just have to find it ;)
>
>You wouldn't want to give me a clue, would you? ;-)
>

I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:04:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 01:33:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:02:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, it is a traditional crock of gold.
>>> 
>>> You just have to find it ;)
>>
>>You wouldn't want to give me a clue, would you? ;-)
>>
>>
> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.

No other clue, then? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 13:58:05 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:04:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2009 01:33:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:02:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, it is a traditional crock of gold.
>>>> 
>>>> You just have to find it ;)
>>>
>>>You wouldn't want to give me a clue, would you? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>
>No other clue, then? ;-)
>
No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>
>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>
> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.

Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>
>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>
>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>
>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>

I can't remember.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:49:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>>
>>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>>
>>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>>
>>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>>
>>
> I can't remember.

How long ago did you place it? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 15:49:28 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:49:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>>>
>>>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>>>
>>>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I can't remember.
>
>How long ago did you place it? ;-)
>
About 6 o'clock this morning.

I'm not really cruel. I just can't remember the name of the fairy tale where the
hero tricked a pixie out of the crock of gold at the bottom of the rainbow. He
then buried it in a field marked with a handkerchief tied to a stick. When he
came back to recover it the whole field was planted with sticks which had
handkerchiefs tied to them.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:11:57 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 15:49:28 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:49:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>>>>
>>>>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I can't remember.
>>
>>How long ago did you place it? ;-)
>>
> About 6 o'clock this morning.

Hmmm, so that would be......Aldwych? <gd&rvvf>

> I'm not really cruel. I just can't remember the name of the fairy tale
> where the hero tricked a pixie out of the crock of gold at the bottom of
> the rainbow. He then buried it in a field marked with a handkerchief
> tied to a stick. When he came back to recover it the whole field was
> planted with sticks which had handkerchiefs tied to them.

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:11 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Hmmm, so that would be......Aldwych? <gd&rvvf>

Buzz - Repetition ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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.)
> 

Another way to look at it is that poisonous animals can be any color 
they want. They already have a defense system (the poison) and don't 
require a second one. Non-poisonous animals lack this defense system, so 
they need to be doubly careful. What they need is their own, *different* 
defense system (the blending in part) so *they* don't get eaten.

Also, as far as the color-as-warning-system goes, it's not like the prey 
animals decided one day that they wanted to be bright yellow or bright 
red. Rather, the predator animal needed help distinguishing poisonous 
animals from non-poisonous ones in order for *it* to survive. Predators 
who didn't learn to distinguish them died and failed to pass on their 
genes, resulting in future generations with a better ability to make the 
color distinctions. Since these future generations are better able to 
distinguish by color, a *second* result is that fewer bright-colored 
poisonous prey animals get eaten. Thus, there's a kind of feedback loop, 
and the behavior of the predator animal (the behavior of the prey animal 
is generally irrelevant) influences the evolution of the prey animal 
along two separate axes.

Finally, only animals that are poisonous *when eaten* (or maybe, low on 
the food chain) tend to be brightly-colored. Animals that use poison to 
*kill their prey* (or, high on the food chain) are not brightly-colored.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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

You win the thread! There's less resistance along the current path (the 
wire) then the sheet of water.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>>
>> You're aware that those cables are carrying several *million* volts?
>>
> 
> At most about 500kV. Typically 250kV. ;) Not millions.
> 
>>
>> Well, this stuff clearly works - it's just a mystery to me *why* it 
>> works. ;-)
> 
> Physics is why it works ;)
> 

Does voltage even matter in this case? Isn't amperage the important bit?

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:47:55 -0400, SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>>
>>> You're aware that those cables are carrying several *million* volts?
>>>
>> 
>> At most about 500kV. Typically 250kV. ;) Not millions.
>> 
>>>
>>> Well, this stuff clearly works - it's just a mystery to me *why* it 
>>> works. ;-)
>> 
>> Physics is why it works ;)
>> 
>
>Does voltage even matter in this case? Isn't amperage the important bit?
>
Yesss and Nooo ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:33:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:11 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Hmmm, so that would be......Aldwych? <gd&rvvf>
> 
> Buzz - Repetition ;)

Dammit! ;-)

Victoria, then. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> 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:

I have been pwned :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 

But trees encroach on power lines all the time.  I can look out my 
window and see half a dozen...

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> Another way to look at it is that poisonous animals 

[snip]

Yes, now *that* makes sense. I knew there had to be a reasonable progression 
of changes.  I hadn't really integrated the idea of the predators evolving 
in step with the prey.

> Finally, only animals that are poisonous *when eaten* (or maybe, low on 
> the food chain) tend to be brightly-colored. Animals that use poison to 
> *kill their prey* (or, high on the food chain) are not brightly-colored.

That I'd noticed, yes.

-- 
   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:
> 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.

That was actually the whole point of the section between the Apes and 
Discovery.

There Russians on the Pan-Am flight were asking Floyd about the 
possibility of a viral outbreak on the moon-base, because the Americans 
had closed their base to all visitors.  When he gets to the moon, it's 
revealed that the virus was a cover story to hide the fact that they had 
found a monolith on the moon.

The monolith then sent a radio transmission (remember the astronauts 
holding their ears in pain? the transmission was picked up on their 
headsets) to Jupiter.  This directly led to the Discovery mission, which 
was really supposed to study the Monolith (and HAL was instructed to lie 
to the Discovery crew about it).

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> That was actually the whole point of the section between the Apes and 
> Discovery.
> 
> There Russians on the Pan-Am flight were asking Floyd about the 
> possibility of a viral outbreak on the moon-base, because the Americans 
> had closed their base to all visitors.  When he gets to the moon, it's 
> revealed that the virus was a cover story to hide the fact that they had 
> found a monolith on the moon.
> 
> The monolith then sent a radio transmission (remember the astronauts 
> holding their ears in pain? the transmission was picked up on their 
> headsets) to Jupiter.  This directly led to the Discovery mission, which 
> was really supposed to study the Monolith (and HAL was instructed to lie 
> to the Discovery crew about it).

The Discovery mission predated the discovery of the monolith, though, 
which is why they were able to lie about the mission's true intent in 
the first place and get away with it.  In the book, the signal was sent 
to Saturn, later retconned in 2010 etc to Jupiter to match with the 
movie.  A lot of stuff in the movie, particularly at the end, only makes 
sense if you read the book.


--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> The monolith then sent a radio transmission (remember the astronauts 
> holding their ears in pain? the transmission was picked up on their 
> headsets) to Jupiter. 

Indeed, the monolith sent the radio transmission when sunlight hit it for 
the first time after it was buried back in pre-history. (And according to 
the book, it was found due to a "magnetic anomoly" which was presumedly the 
circulating currents holding the energy for the transmission, altho I don't 
remember if that was mentioned in the movie.)

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

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> 
> Does voltage even matter in this case? Isn't amperage the important bit?

Yes it does. It's voltage that smashes through the insulation and jumps
over air. Current is what heats the wire up (thus possibly melting the
insulation and making it easier for the voltage to jump, but that
demands a high current in too small cable) and kills people.

> -Mike

-Aero

Post a reply to this message