 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:14:41 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Rain water isn't chemically pure. (Depending on pollution levels.) Once
> the pylon gets wet, it's entire surface is covered in a continuous sheet
> of water, which also covers all of the cables. So why don't they short
> out?
Because the bare wire isn't exposed, it's insulated. And in order to
short out, you have to have a path for electrons to flow. Arguably it
would take a pretty strong rainstorm to give the current someplace to go
to.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> 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.)
>
> --
> - Warp
The viceroy butterfly mimics the poisonous monarch butterfly for protection from
predators. Its fairly common among many species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batesian_mimicry
Isaac.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:07:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> Are mushrooms poisonous on purpose, or by accident?
>>
>> That implies a will behind their creation. And not all mushrooms are
>> poisonous. Take the ones that I had on my hamburger last night.....
>> ;-)
>
> No it doesn't.
Yes, it does. "On purpose" implies an intelligence is behind their
creation, purposefully making them the way they are.
> Did mushrooms evolve to be poisonous because that's advantageous
> somehow? Or do they just happen to be poisonous to animals because of
> their unusual chemistry?
Perhaps some of both.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
This clearly works poorly if the prey is so poisonous they kill the predator
with one meal.
> It would make little sense to just have poison but otherwise look edible.
> Both predator and prey get killed. With a warning color both live.
So which evolved first? At some point, you're poisonous enough to make the
predator sick, but bright enough to be easily found? I understand the
hand-waving explanation. It's the details I don't really follow.
> (By this logic it would follow that some species mimic the color of
> poisonous species. I wonder if there are examples of this.)
Yes, quite a few. Both monarch butterflies (and their immitators) and that
kind of snake with the red/black/yellow stripes whose name I forget springs
to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batesian_mimicry
Oh, there's the snake. GIYF. Can you tell which is poisonous and which
isn't? Notice the different order of the stripes.
http://www.pestproducts.com/images/coral.jpg
http://www.pestproducts.com/images/sckng.jpg
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:06:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> So it is much simplier
> and cheaper for overhead cables to be left bare and make sure that there
> is a lot of space between them.
Weird, over here, the power lines are insulated....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:37:20 +0200, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Actually it is quite hard to ignite petrol from a petrol pump with a
> naked flame.
That depends on the flame.
> Besides having a LEL (Lower Explosive Limit) petrol has an Upper
> Explosive Limit (UEL) where above that level the gas/air mixture is
> too rich to burn. In the open air the gas/air mixture goes from too
> rich to too leen very quickly. I once saw a petrol pump attendant put
> a lit cigarette into the mouth of a full petrol tank.
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/mpmain.html#cigarettes
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:55:43 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> AFAIK the bright colors work as a warning signal. Predators learn to
>> distinguish the poisonous prey by their color.
>
> This clearly works poorly if the prey is so poisonous they kill the
> predator with one meal.
It works perfectly if the predator does not eat the prey himself, but
instead feeds his offspring with it.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, maybe not now, but when I was in college, PS101 was colloquially
> referred to as "Bonehead Chemistry". ;-)
Yes. It should be noted (for those outside the USA's idioms) that many 101
courses were targeted at people who were not planning to take another course
in the subject. A literature major might take Computers 101, while a
computer science major might take Sociology 101.
Hence, if someone says "Geez, you should know that, that's 100-level stuff"
that's why. (Note that "100-level" means all the 101, 102, etc courses.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> It works perfectly if the predator does not eat the prey himself, but
> instead feeds his offspring with it.
<laugh> For some definition of the word "perfectly" I suppose. :-)
--
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 09:09:25 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> A literature major might take Computers 101
This is a good point - the CS101 class where I went to school was
basically a class on using an office suite ("Enable" was what the
software was called - wonder how many people here have heard of it and/or
used it) and software like Harvard Graphics to build presentations.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> scott wrote:
>> Anyway, take 200 metres of this stuff (which I make weighs 10 tons):
>> http://www.csunitec.com/saws/new-river-band-saw.html
>
> Cool. It doesn't really look that big from the ground, does it?
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. The German Wikipedia mentions a typical cross-section of 60
mm^2 of steel surrounded by 257 mm^2 of aluminum, so the diameter should
be close to 20 mm.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:55:43 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Warp wrote:
> >> AFAIK the bright colors work as a warning signal. Predators learn to
> >> distinguish the poisonous prey by their color.
> >
> > This clearly works poorly if the prey is so poisonous they kill the
> > predator with one meal.
> It works perfectly if the predator does not eat the prey himself, but
> instead feeds his offspring with it.
Note that not all poisons are deadly.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Oh, there's the snake. GIYF. Can you tell which is poisonous and which
> isn't? Notice the different order of the stripes.
>
"Red on yellow, kills a fellow..." I forget the rest, but remembering the first
part is enough, really.
-Reactor
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Reactor wrote:
> "Red on yellow, kills a fellow..." I forget the rest, but remembering the first
> part is enough, really.
The rest goes "Red on Black will kill Jack."
Me, I'll stay away from both of em. ;-)
--
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 11:50:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Reactor wrote:
>> "Red on yellow, kills a fellow..." I forget the rest, but remembering
>> the first part is enough, really.
>
> The rest goes "Red on Black will kill Jack."
>
> Me, I'll stay away from both of em. ;-)
But your name isn't Jack, at least I don't think it is. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> As *I* remember, Pascal arrays start at whatever index you tell them to
>> start at. (E.g, you can make the first index be 17 if you want...)
>>
>> VAR stuff : ARRAY [17..21] OF INT;
>
> I was thinking positions for a string. In Pascal, using the string
> "abcdef", position 1 is "a". In C, it's position 0.
Probably.
IIRC, in Turbo Pascal, position 0 is the length. (And since it's a
single byte, no strings longer than 255 characters...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:56:30 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> As *I* remember, Pascal arrays start at whatever index you tell them
>>> to start at. (E.g, you can make the first index be 17 if you want...)
>>>
>>> VAR stuff : ARRAY [17..21] OF INT;
>>
>> I was thinking positions for a string. In Pascal, using the string
>> "abcdef", position 1 is "a". In C, it's position 0.
>
> Probably.
>
> IIRC, in Turbo Pascal, position 0 is the length. (And since it's a
> single byte, no strings longer than 255 characters...)
Yep, Turbo Pascal stored the length rather than using the C method of
null-terminating the string.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> IIRC, in Turbo Pascal, position 0 is the length. (And since it's a
>> single byte, no strings longer than 255 characters...)
>
> Yep, Turbo Pascal stored the length rather than using the C method of
> null-terminating the string.
...with the disadvantage of having a maximum string size, and the
advantage of making certain memory management operations much easier...
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...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:14:27 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> IIRC, in Turbo Pascal, position 0 is the length. (And since it's a
>>> single byte, no strings longer than 255 characters...)
>>
>> Yep, Turbo Pascal stored the length rather than using the C method of
>> null-terminating the string.
>
> ...with the disadvantage of having a maximum string size, and the
> advantage of making certain memory management operations much easier...
Yep.
> 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...
Not with a good unicode library. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-9-2009 11:09, Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:06:46 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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?
>>> There are insulators between the cables and pylons so there is no path for the
>>> electricity to flow there.
>> Indeed. This is why it works when they're dry.
>>
>> However, when those insulators are covered with a continuous layer of
>> water...
>
> Look at the insulators, they are a strange shape. That shape ensures that they
> are not covered with a continuous layer of water. Magic, isn't it :)
For some reason I saw nobody referring to these as 'magic mushrooms', I
wonder why.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...with the disadvantage of having a maximum string size,
Every machine has a maximum string size. What you really mean is "a maximum
string size small enough I've bumped into it often enough to be annoying."
I knew a professor who taught "There's two kinds of programming languages.
Those that support bounds-checks on their fundamental data types, and those
that don't know they need to support bounds-checks on their fundamental data
types." (Or something to that effect.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3 Sep 2009 12:17:42 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>and software like Harvard Graphics
A rave from the grave :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:14:25 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Look at the insulators, they are a strange shape. That shape ensures that they
>> are not covered with a continuous layer of water. Magic, isn't it :)
>
>For some reason I saw nobody referring to these as 'magic mushrooms', I
>wonder why.
'Caus you'd be spaced out :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
>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.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:59:21 +0200, "Fredrik Eriksson"
<fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:37:20 +0200, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Actually it is quite hard to ignite petrol from a petrol pump with a
>> naked flame.
>
>That depends on the flame.
>
Yip! A thermite lance or a nova will do it ;)
>
>> Besides having a LEL (Lower Explosive Limit) petrol has an Upper
>> Explosive Limit (UEL) where above that level the gas/air mixture is
>> too rich to burn. In the open air the gas/air mixture goes from too
>> rich to too leen very quickly. I once saw a petrol pump attendant put
>> a lit cigarette into the mouth of a full petrol tank.
>
>http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/mpmain.html#cigarettes
That agrees with what I said, I think.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:36:00 +0200, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:59:21 +0200, "Fredrik Eriksson"
> <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:37:20 +0200, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> Actually it is quite hard to ignite petrol from a petrol pump with a
>>> naked flame.
>>
>> That depends on the flame.
>>
>
> Yip! A thermite lance or a nova will do it ;)
A match will do just as well.
>>> Besides having a LEL (Lower Explosive Limit) petrol has an Upper
>>> Explosive Limit (UEL) where above that level the gas/air mixture is
>>> too rich to burn. In the open air the gas/air mixture goes from too
>>> rich to too leen very quickly. I once saw a petrol pump attendant put
>>> a lit cigarette into the mouth of a full petrol tank.
>>
>> http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/mpmain.html#cigarettes
>
> That agrees with what I said, I think.
Regarding cigarettes, yes.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
