Searching \ for '[OT] Antipodean Beasts (was: Re: Heatsinking 1N400' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=heatsinking+1n400
Search entire site for: 'Antipodean Beasts (was: Re: Heatsinking 1N400'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Antipodean Beasts (was: Re: Heatsinking 1N400'
2006\04\18@194600 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Jinx, (Tag & Topic changed)

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:31:03 +1200, Jinx wrote:

>...
> we can make the fire to ward off marauding possums and wetas from our meagre villages

I know what a possum is (one wandered in front of the car when I was driving down the West coast of South
Island a few years ago), but what on Earth is a weta?

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\18@195335 by olin piclist

face picon face
Howard Winter wrote:
> I know what a possum is (one wandered in front of the car when I was
> driving down the West coast of South Island a few years ago), but what
> on Earth is a weta?

A evolution experiment gone haywire to see how large you can make an insect.
Fortunately these things aren't nasty, but you have to make sure they don't
carry off your cat, your child, or your small car.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\04\18@195943 by Mike Hord

picon face
Weta = big giant space cricket from New Zealand.

Cross reference Peter Jackson, Lord of the Rings and Weta Workshop.

Mike H.

On 4/18/06, Howard Winter <spam_OUTHDRWTakeThisOuTspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\04\18@201053 by Jinx

face picon face
> but what on Earth is a weta?

http://weta.boarsnest.net/

A lot of people are terrified of them, afraid they'll lose a finger
or something. I like 'em. They aren't poisonous, they don't bite,
don't jump in your hair, don't have any 'tude, don't trip you up
and beat you with a stick. They just look like mean SOBs, with
all the fiddly bits and spines

NZ was isolated for many aeons and had no mammals, wetas
took the role of a vegetarian mouse in the forests

2006\04\19@155156 by Peter

picon face

Thos beetles are huge. I used to complain about the size of the creepers
and buzzers around here, but then I read a little and I found this:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

how good it is at aiming (amazing):

 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/17/9705?ijkey=097c98acbdf7a2ee2d340f97a0459336c9f30c84&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

where do these guys live ? I wonder if one could be tacked to a small
paper boat and used as reactive propulsor (prodded by a pic-controller
solenoid).

Peter

2006\04\19@155655 by Peter

picon face

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Jinx wrote:

> NZ was isolated for many aeons and had no mammals, wetas
> took the role of a vegetarian mouse in the forests

Why do you keep saying 'vegetarian'. The weta eats other insects and
dead animals. Presumably it does not eat live ones because it can't
catch them.

Peter

2006\04\19@200811 by Jinx

face picon face
> > NZ was isolated for many aeons and had no mammals, wetas
> > took the role of a vegetarian mouse in the forests
>
> Why do you keep saying 'vegetarian'. The weta eats other insects
> and dead animals. Presumably it does not eat live ones because it
> can't catch them.

AFAIK weta are herbivores

2006\04\20@144138 by Peter

picon face


On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Jinx wrote:

>>> NZ was isolated for many aeons and had no mammals, wetas
>>> took the role of a vegetarian mouse in the forests
>>
>> Why do you keep saying 'vegetarian'. The weta eats other insects
>> and dead animals. Presumably it does not eat live ones because it
>> can't catch them.
>
> AFAIK weta are herbivores

The wikipedia article on weta says they eat other insects and dead
animals. It follows that if wetas can read then they are more dangerous
...

Peter

2006\04\20@175051 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>>> NZ was isolated for many aeons and had no mammals, wetas
>>>> took the role of a vegetarian mouse in the forests

NZ in fact has one native mammal species.
A creature that most people would not realise was a mammal.
What is it?

It's no substitute for mice, or for Wetas.



           RM


2006\04\20@181711 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
Bats!

Russell McMahon wrote:
>>>>> NZ was isolated for many aeons and had no mammals, wetas
>>>>> took the role of a vegetarian mouse in the forests
>>>>>          
>
> NZ in fact has one native mammal species.
> A creature that most people would not realise was a mammal.
> What is it?
>
> It's no substitute for mice, or for Wetas.
>
>
>
>             RM
>
>
>  

--

*Carey Fisher, Chief Technical Officer
New Communications Solutions, LLC
*.....careyfisherKILLspamspam@spam@ncsradio.com <careyfisherspamKILLspamncsradio.com>
Toll Free Phone:888-883-5788
Local Phone:770-814-0683
FAX: 888-883-5788
http://www.ncsradio.com <http://www.ncsradio.com/>

2006\04\20@181909 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
Drop Bear?

On 4/20/06, Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspamspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >>>> NZ was isolated for many aeons and had no mammals, wetas
> >>>> took the role of a vegetarian mouse in the forests
>
> NZ in fact has one native mammal species.
> A creature that most people would not realise was a mammal.
> What is it?
>
> It's no substitute for mice, or for Wetas.
>
>
>
>             RM
>
>
> -

2006\04\20@183450 by Mike Hord

picon face
Echidna?

On 4/20/06, Russell McMahon <EraseMEapptechspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> >>>> NZ was isolated for many aeons and had no mammals, wetas
> >>>> took the role of a vegetarian mouse in the forests
>
> NZ in fact has one native mammal species.
> A creature that most people would not realise was a mammal.
> What is it?
>
> It's no substitute for mice, or for Wetas.
>
>
>
>             RM
>
>
> -

2006\04\20@185822 by Jinx

face picon face

> > AFAIK weta are herbivores
>
> The wikipedia article on weta says they eat other insects and dead
> animals. It follows that if wetas can read then they are more dangerous

Ruud Kleinpaste, a world-renowned "bug man" does a local talkback
at, ugh, 7am Sunday. If anyone knows for sure, it'll be Ruud. I'll ask, as
I'm intrigued. In fact I'll be going past his house before then but reckon
he has his fair share of "pests"

2006\04\20@193636 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> NZ in fact has one native mammal species.
>> A creature that most people would not realise was a mammal.
>> What is it?

> Bats!

Indeed.

Google ? :-)



   RM

2006\04\20@194210 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> NZ in fact has one native mammal species.
>> A creature that most people would not realise was a mammal.
>> What is it?

> Bats!

Indeed.

Google ? :-)



   RM

2006\04\20@195654 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> >> NZ in fact has one native mammal species.
> >> A creature that most people would not realise was a mammal.
> >> What is it?
>
> > Bats!
>
> Indeed.

And those people must be batty.

Since people are mammals, therefore bats are mamals. :)
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
jayspamspam_OUTsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\04\20@201752 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:49:17 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:

> >>>> NZ was isolated for many aeons and had no mammals, wetas
> >>>> took the role of a vegetarian mouse in the forests
>
> NZ in fact has one native mammal species.
> A creature that most people would not realise was a mammal.
> What is it?

Ooh!  Ooh!  I know!

A small species of bat (just the one, I believe.  One species, not one bat :-).

> It's no substitute for mice, or for Wetas.

I like bats!  I'd much rather have bats that Wetas...

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\20@202037 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:34:50 -0500, Mike Hord wrote:

> Echidna?

That's a marsupial!

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\20@203108 by Jinx

face picon face
> The wikipedia article on weta says they eat other insects and
> dead animals. It follows that if wetas can read then they are
> more dangerous

Peter, I stand corrected -

==============================

Hello - response from Ruud.

Regards
Anne-Marie Gibson
PA
Newstalk ZB and Radio Sport

all true: weta are omnivores
I am talking about your run-of-the-mill tree weta (Hemideina species).
When you keep them in captivity you'll find they will indeed eat dead
insects (a cleaning service in Nature) and rotten old fruits, leaves,
wood, whatever. There's even a record of them eating dead baby
mice!

Now, cave wetas are pure predators, just about; they'll eat their
siblings if they get a chance. So... as I always say: wetas are in the
green business - been doing it for 200 million years or so. recycling
is their thing

Cheers
Ruud

2006\04\20@203508 by Zik Saleeba

face picon face
Marsupials are a subclass of mammals.

Cheers,
Zik

On 21/04/06, Howard Winter <@spam@HDRWKILLspamspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\04\20@204200 by Jinx

face picon face
> Since people are mammals, therefore bats are mamals. :)

There's a theory that some bats are also very close to primates !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabat

2006\04\20@205805 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
I read a lot.

Russell McMahon wrote:
>>> NZ in fact has one native mammal species.
>>> A creature that most people would not realise was a mammal.
>>> What is it?
>>>      
>
>  
>> Bats!
>>    
>
> Indeed.
>
> Google ? :-)
>
>
>
>     RM
>  

--

*Carey Fisher, Chief Technical Officer
New Communications Solutions, LLC
*KILLspamcareyfisherKILLspamspamncsradio.com <RemoveMEcareyfisherTakeThisOuTspamncsradio.com>
Toll Free Phone:888-883-5788
Local Phone:770-814-0683
FAX: 888-883-5788
http://www.ncsradio.com <http://www.ncsradio.com/>

2006\04\20@211211 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Now, cave wetas are pure predators, just about; they'll eat their
> siblings if they get a chance. So... as I always say: wetas are in
> the
> green business - been doing it for 200 million years or so.
> recycling
> is their thing

I believe cave wetas grow REALLY large - up to about a foot AFAIR. I
wonder if Jinx is as comfortable playing with them as with the
"little" ones we get around here which are 'only' up to 2 or maybe 3
inches long.

I'll handle these 'small' sized ones if I must to eg take them outside
when they occasionally turn up indoors but they are still impressively
creepy creatures.



       RM


2006\04\20@211212 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> There's a theory that some bats are also very close to primates !

Most species which have been traditionally held to be "close" to
others are seen to be about equidistant from any other species when
looked at from a molecular biology perspective.

Even the recent genome analyses which purport to show that eg mice
differ very little from men are more probably showing that we have no
real idea of all the factors which are involved in making one species
different from another. For sure its more than just genome alone. (And
such comparisons invariably exclude the "junk" DNA - a definite
mistake).





       RM

2006\04\21@032252 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>I'll handle these 'small' sized ones if I must to eg take
>them outside when they occasionally turn up indoors but
>they are still impressively creepy creatures.

Yeah, make sure you tip the gumboots (wellies for those in the UK, don't
know the corresponding US term) upside down and give them a bang to knock
the wetas out. Any sort of shoe or boot left in the back porch seems to be a
favoured hiding place for them.

2006\04\21@070202 by olin piclist

face picon face
> Even the recent genome analyses which purport to show that eg mice
> differ very little from men are more probably showing that we have no
> real idea of all the factors which are involved in making one species
> different from another. For sure its more than just genome alone.

If you are talking about learned behavior that is still characteristic of a
species then I agree with you.  However, if you are talking about the
physical makeup of the animal, then I don't know what you are referring to.
In other words, is it possible to create an animal of a particular species
from just the genome alone?  Except for learned traits, the answer is "yes"
as far as any research I'm aware of.  Just some debate or conflicting
research on this issue doesn't justify the "for sure" rating of the
statement.  Unless you and I are thinking of very different contexts (which
then should have been defined better before making such a strong statement),
labeling a statement that is controversial at best as "for sure" is just
plain irresponsible.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\04\21@073936 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> >I'll handle these 'small' sized ones if I must to eg take
>>them outside when they occasionally turn up indoors but
>>they are still impressively creepy creatures.

> Yeah, make sure you tip the gumboots (wellies for those in the UK,
> don't
> know the corresponding US term) upside down and give them a bang to
> knock
> the wetas out. Any sort of shoe or boot left in the back porch seems
> to be a
> favoured hiding place for them.


Gumboots in NZ due originally to gumdiggers favouring wearing very
long rubber boots.

Wellies after Arthur Wellesley (aka the 1st Duke of Wellington).
But, his were made of leather.
Wellington boot / Wellie / ...

Topboots        Ireland



       RM



2006\04\21@082441 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Even the recent genome analyses which purport to show that eg mice
>> differ very little from men are more probably showing that we have
>> no
>> real idea of all the factors which are involved in making one
>> species
>> different from another. For sure its more than just genome alone.

> If you are talking about learned behavior that is still
> characteristic of a
> species then I agree with you.  However, if you are talking about
> the
> physical makeup of the animal, then I don't know what you are
> referring to.
> In other words, is it possible to create an animal of a particular
> species
> from just the genome alone?  Except for learned traits, the answer
> is "yes"
> as far as any research I'm aware of.

... but is "absolutely definitely not" as has been discovered and
increasingly confirmed in recent years.

> Just some debate or conflicting
> research on this issue doesn't justify the "for sure" rating of the
> statement.

Indeed.

> Unless you and I are thinking of very different contexts

we're not

> (which then should have been defined better before making such a
> strong statement),

Indeed. Just as well that I wasn't.

> labeling a statement that is controversial at best as "for sure" is
> just
> plain irresponsible.

Absolutely :-)

Hmm.
I started some drivel which might have grown into doggerel if time
allows but it doesn't.

Don't have references to hand.
But even you should strongly suspect summat's aglae when Humans report
in at around 30,000 genes and Mustrad Grass at about 25,000.
I suggest that if you are offended by the suggestion that the best
counter is to produce two or three good solid references that clearly
contradict it.
Something along the lines of "The results of the human genome project
have confirmed what has long been taken for granted - the
characteristics of every living thing are completely defined solely by
the contents of their DNA...". Would need to be originated post HGP.
Good luck.



       RM

______________________________

Drivel, never made it to doggerel.

How can I express it.
We could start with atg, and stop with a tag (not html) or taa, or tga
too.
It's all in the introns - or is it :-)
The centromere all seemed so clear.
What seemed like many appeared quite few, when Ventner gave a closer
view.
At 30,000 , give or take, we're not far off mere mustard grass.
(Arabidopsis thaliana if you wish, but me, I'll pass),
20% less genes makes such a jump
Where one is you, the other grass.

__________

Shame - Barr bodies and genetic sports tests were just crying out for
a pun.






2006\04\21@084109 by olin piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Don't have references to hand.
> But even you should strongly suspect summat's aglae when Humans report
> in at around 30,000 genes and Mustrad Grass at about 25,000.
> I suggest that if you are offended by the suggestion that the best
> counter is to produce two or three good solid references that clearly
> contradict it.
> Something along the lines of "The results of the human genome project
> have confirmed what has long been taken for granted - the
> characteristics of every living thing are completely defined solely by
> the contents of their DNA...". Would need to be originated post HGP.
> Good luck.

I don't understand what the heck you're trying to say here.  If there was a
mention of a mechanism that defines the physical makeup of an animal beyond
its genome, I didn't see it.

> Drivel, never made it to doggerel.

Whatever that means...

{Quote hidden}

Huh?

I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned scientific argument where the
additional information for the physical makeup of an organism comes from
other than its genome, let a lone a sufficiently strong case to justify the
"for sure" rating of your statement.

Really Russell, if I didn't know better from your many other posts, I'd
conclude from this you were just a troll.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\04\21@122504 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
Actually...

Major Premise: Bats are mammals
Minor Premise: You are a mammal
Conclusion:  You are "bats"  Q.E.D.

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--

*Carey Fisher, Chief Technical Officer
New Communications Solutions, LLC
*spamBeGonecareyfisherspamBeGonespamncsradio.com <TakeThisOuTcareyfisherEraseMEspamspam_OUTncsradio.com>
Toll Free Phone:888-883-5788
Local Phone:770-814-0683
FAX: 888-883-5788
http://www.ncsradio.com <http://www.ncsradio.com/>

2006\04\21@122827 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
US:  "rubbers"  (also slang for condoms)

Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> Yeah, make sure you tip the gumboots (wellies for those in the UK, don't
> know the corresponding US term) upside down and give them a bang to knock
> the wetas out.
>  

--

*Carey Fisher, Chief Technical Officer
New Communications Solutions, LLC
*RemoveMEcareyfisherspamTakeThisOuTncsradio.com <careyfisherEraseMEspam.....ncsradio.com>
Toll Free Phone:888-883-5788
Local Phone:770-814-0683
FAX: 888-883-5788
http://www.ncsradio.com <http://www.ncsradio.com/>

2006\04\21@123400 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
I dunno, I'm partial to "jimmie hat".  It just has that entertainly
juvenile ring to it, so I don't sound *too* grown up. :)

--Danny

Carey wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] Antipodean Beasts (was: Re: Heatsinking 1N400x diodes.. .)' on Fri, Apr 21 at 11:30:
> US:  "rubbers"  (also slang for condoms)
>
> Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> > Yeah, make sure you tip the gumboots (wellies for those in the UK, don't
> > know the corresponding US term) upside down and give them a bang to knock
> > the wetas out.

2006\04\21@141604 by Peter

picon face


On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Russell McMahon wrote:

>>> NZ in fact has one native mammal species.
>>> A creature that most people would not realise was a mammal.
>>> What is it?
>
>> Bats!

Who would think a bat is not a mammal ? I was thinking platypus or
something like that.

Peter

2006\04\21@141837 by Peter

picon face


On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Jinx wrote:

>> Since people are mammals, therefore bats are mamals. :)
>
> There's a theory that some bats are also very close to primates !

Especially those from Transylvania ...

Peter

2006\04\21@154405 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Peter wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] Antipodean Beasts (was: Re:
Heatsinking 1N400x diodes.. .)' on Fri, Apr 21 at 13:20:
> Who would think a bat is not a mammal ? I was thinking platypus or
> something like that.

As long as people keep falling for Nigerian 419 scams multiple times,
no act of ignorance will surprise me.

--Danny, noting that ignorance is used in the dictionary sense here,
not in the sense with an offensively negative connotation...

2006\04\24@041317 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>US:  "rubbers"  (also slang for condoms)

Hmm, same slang used here, but the same word is also used by children for a
pencil eraser ....

2006\04\24@050609 by Jinx

face picon face

> >US:  "rubbers"  (also slang for condoms)
>
> Hmm, same slang used here, but the same word is also used by
> children for a pencil eraser ....

One to stop mistakes, one to correct. Now, if you made a condom
with an eraser on it, it'd be a one-stop shop

(Alan, you'd be familiar with Eastenders. Alfie's cousin Jake was
throwing insults at local mobster Johnny Allen and said everything
just bounces off him - "they should call you Rubber Johnny")


2006\04\24@053326 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Alan,

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:13:11 +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

> >US:  "rubbers"  (also slang for condoms)
>
> Hmm, same slang used here, but the same word is also used by children for a
> pencil eraser ....

In fact that is the origin of the word!  Originally a rubber was something used to erase pencil marks by
rubbing them - and all sorts of things have been used, including bread!  When the processed sap from the
/Hevea/ tree was found to be useful for rubbing out pencil marks, the name "rubber" was adopted for the
material.  So calling a pencil eraser "a rubber" is not only correct, but much older than the discovery of
latex, let alone its use for condoms (all sorts of things were used for that, too! :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\24@083109 by Dominic Stratten

picon face
part 1 1127 bytes content-type:text/plain; (decoded quoted-printable)


-----Original Message-----
From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu] On Behalf Of
Howard Winter
Sent: 24 April 2006 10:33
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Antipodean Beasts (was: Re: Heatsinking 1N400x diodes.. .)

Alan,

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:13:11 +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

> >US:  "rubbers"  (also slang for condoms)
> > Hmm, same slang used here, but the same word is also used by children > for a pencil eraser ....

In fact that is the origin of the word!  Originally a rubber was something
used to erase pencil marks by rubbing them - and all sorts of things have
been used, including bread!  When the processed sap from the /Hevea/ tree
was found to be useful for rubbing out pencil marks, the name "rubber" was
adopted for the material.  So calling a pencil eraser "a rubber" is not only
correct, but much older than the discovery of latex, let alone its use for
condoms (all sorts of things were used for that, too! :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...