The Midnight Sun
Kim
called "The Midnight Sun". (a synopsis and script can be found at
http://www.thetzsite.com/pages/episodes/075.html) In it a woman is in a
world where the Earth is moving towards the sun and she is trying to survive
in a world that is slowly becoming hotter and hotter. As this is the
Twilight Zone, we are shown that the woman is not really in a world where
this is occurring, but completely the opposite, she is a victim of a high
fever and was dreaming. She is really in a world where the Earth is moving
further and further away from the sun, and Earth is getting colder and
colder.
Now, I have lived in both Florida and Vermont, and therefore I have
experiences with extreme cold and extreme heat, and I must tell you, if I
was "doomed" to spend the rest of my life in one extreme case or the other,
I would choose the cold. When you are in extreme heat, you rely on
artificial means to stay cool - AC, showers, refrigerator, and there is a
social expectation that you can't just take off all your clothes and go to
the grocery store.
On the other hand, when you are cold, you can build a fire, put on more
clothes, stay under the covers, etc.
But, my specific questions arising from this episode:
1. Which would be more devastating to humans - the daily temperature rising
by 100 degrees, or dropping by 100 degrees? Would both be equally as fatal
to humans?
2. Is there a temperature at which I couldn't light a fire anymore?
3. Would the vegetation of Earth be equally doomed by these two extremes?
Would anything survive?
4. Would there be any animals that I could still expect to see at 100 +
normal, or 100 - normal? Animals that would still be able to adapt and live?
Besides cockroaches?
5. Would my electricity still flow at these extremes - would my refrigerator
still dispense ice cubes? Would my space heater still work?
6. Would the oceans evaporate at 100 + normal temps over an extended period
of time?
7. Would paintings really melt off the canvas like in the episode, cause
that would be really neat to see.
8. If humans would die off in this scenario - what would they die of?
Starvation/dehydration or the direct effect of the heat/cold on the human
body? And which would humans survive longer in - the too hot or too cold
scenario?
9. Am I alone in thinking that it's better to be cold than hot? Which is
easier for you to deal with, and which scenario would you rather find
yourself in?
Kim
*I've been married about 10 years now, but the wind chill makes it feel more
like 50. (SkyWalker)*
Patrick Free
@adelphia.net says...
> 1. Which would be more devastating to humans - the daily temperature rising
> by 100 degrees, or dropping by 100 degrees? Would both be equally as fatal
> to humans?
>
If we assume a "comfortable" temperature is 72 degrees, then I would
expect 172 (not too far from boiling water) would be much more
devastating than -28 degrees. As far as I know, you couldn't live
without some kind of cold suit in 172 degree temps. However, there are
people that live in -28 degree weather without any special technology.
> 2. Is there a temperature at which I couldn't light a fire anymore?
Liquid Oxygen is very very cold, and very flammable. I don't think
there is a cold temperature at which you couldn't light a fire, assuming
you had enough oxygen.
> 3. Would the vegetation of Earth be equally doomed by these two extremes?
> Would anything survive?
>
I don't know of any vegetaion that can survive at 172. I think there
are a few (very few) arctic plants that survive in the -28 range.
> 4. Would there be any animals that I could still expect to see at 100 +
> normal, or 100 - normal? Animals that would still be able to adapt and live?
> Besides cockroaches?
>
Ditto above. Polar bears, penguins and such survive in the -28 range.
> 5. Would my electricity still flow at these extremes - would my refrigerator
> still dispense ice cubes? Would my space heater still work?
>
Electricity has no problem with temperatures (superconductivity at low
temperatures), but some of the components might not survive these
extremes. Your refrigerator will have no problem dispensing ice cubes
at -28, although you probably won't want to bother. I don't think the
compressor on a standad refrigerator could keep up with 172 degree
temps.
> 6. Would the oceans evaporate at 100 + normal temps over an extended period
> of time?
>
I don't think so.
> 7. Would paintings really melt off the canvas like in the episode, cause
> that would be really neat to see.
>
I don't know about this one. It would be cool to see.
> 8. If humans would die off in this scenario - what would they die of?
> Starvation/dehydration or the direct effect of the heat/cold on the human
> body? And which would humans survive longer in - the too hot or too cold
> scenario?
>
Either temperature would kill you pretty quickly if you are unprotected.
The difference is that you could survive without special technology at -
28, but you need some kind of refrigerator to survive at 172. I think
food production would be a big concern. We would have to go the whole
"soylent green" route.
> 9. Am I alone in thinking that it's better to be cold than hot? Which is
> easier for you to deal with, and which scenario would you rather find
> yourself in?
>
I think there is wide variation in temperature tolerances and
preferences. If you live in a mild climate (like Southern Calif), then
you become much more sensitive to mild extremes (ie 65 is freezing and
80 is sweltering). I think there is universal agreement that cold
weather is easier to deal with, for the reasons you described. People
who say they like it hot mean they like 90 degree, sunny weather. I
don't think anyone could possible prefer 172 to -28.
Patrick
Al Yellon
news:NIr9a.4111$J51.6...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> 9. Am I alone in thinking that it's better to be cold than hot? Which is
> easier for you to deal with, and which scenario would you rather find
> yourself in?
I don't have answers to the rest of your questions, but I do think this
really is a matter of body chemistry and personal preference. Me, I'm always
too cold, and of course, living in Chicago in a cold climate doesn't help.
When it gets warm/hot in the summer, I'm much happier. It's not that I
*like* sweating so much when it's humid, but it doesn't bother me as much as
it does many other people.
Give me the heat.
--
"If you're not part of the future, then get out of the way." -- John
Mellencamp
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++
Rants, comments, reviews: || To contact me use the following:
http://www.yellon.org/links.htm || ayellon (at) colgatealumni.org
ra...@westnet.poe.com
<snip>
> But, my specific questions arising from this episode:
> 1. Which would be more devastating to humans - the daily temperature rising
> by 100 degrees, or dropping by 100 degrees? Would both be equally as fatal
> to humans?
All over the globe? Both would be pretty severe as the biosphere would
collapse and there's little we could do about it.
> 2. Is there a temperature at which I couldn't light a fire anymore?
Sure, any temperature below the autoignition point of whatever fuel you've
got. 300 degrees would be too cold for example. But if you can raise the
temperature in a local area high enough, well then you're going to get
fire so long as there's oxygen to burn. Which may give you the answer
you're looking for: once oxygen rains out of the atmosphere, there'll be
no fires unles you could carefully pout the LOX on the fire to keep it
going.
> 3. Would the vegetation of Earth be equally doomed by these two extremes?
> Would anything survive?
Sure, in the cold one, there will be life at the thermal vents and algea
is pretty hrady stuff too. Ditto for the hot one, but the vast majority
of stuff we depend on will be goners.
> 4. Would there be any animals that I could still expect to see at 100 +
> normal, or 100 - normal? Animals that would still be able to adapt and live?
> Besides cockroaches?
100 degrees too cold and the earth becomes a frozen iceball; only at the
thermal vents will you find some animals: srimp and the like, but they're
a lot like cockroaches. 100 degrees too warm and you may have whatever
could make it to antarctica from the equator.
> 5. Would my electricity still flow at these extremes - would my refrigerator
> still dispense ice cubes? Would my space heater still work?
Sure, assuming someone is still alive to run the generators.
> 6. Would the oceans evaporate at 100 + normal temps over an extended period
> of time?
Mostly.
> 7. Would paintings really melt off the canvas like in the episode, cause
> that would be really neat to see.
Buy a cheap oil painting and put in your oven and find out.
> 8. If humans would die off in this scenario - what would they die of?
> Starvation/dehydration or the direct effect of the heat/cold on the human
> body? And which would humans survive longer in - the too hot or too cold
> scenario?
Well, there are billions of peeps, and every death is unique, but I'd
imagine most would die off from viscious infighting for the last remaining
resources needed to sustain life, at least early on. Starvation and
disease brought on by starvation will take over soon there after. What
few manage to survive that would likely die off as the oxygen content
dwindles below that needed to support higher animals. A few humans may
live on in some sort of heavilly artificial environment, but I'd imagine
they'd eventually die of boredom.
> 9. Am I alone in thinking that it's better to be cold than hot? Which is
> easier for you to deal with, and which scenario would you rather find
> yourself in?
Nope, I'm with you in general, tho in your +/- 100 degrees scenario, the
hot one is more survavable: antarctica may be habitable, possibly for a
very long time.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Lalbert1
<pf...@nukem.com> writes:
> don't know of any vegetaion that can survive at 172. I think there
>are a few (very few) arctic plants that survive in the -28 range.
According to http://www.taloyoak.com/arctic-plants.htm the list of plants that
survive on the tundra include arctic cotton, arctic heather, yellow arnica,
purple saxifrage,
mountain sorrel, arctic poppy.
>> 7. Would paintings really melt off the canvas like in the episode, cause
>> that would be really neat to see.
>I don't know about this one. It would be cool to see.
This painting started to melt during a very hot summer in N.Y.C. The museum
noticed it before it dripped on the floor, but they couldn't restore it:
http://www.a-reny.com/bankgene/lesmolles.jpeg
Les
Rich Clancey
[somebody asked:]
+> 7. Would paintings really melt off the canvas like in the episode, cause
+> that would be really neat to see.
+>
+ I don't know about this one. It would be cool to see.
Oil paintings use linseed oil as a medium, a mixture of six
related oils pressed from flax seeds. One exposure to air, they
oxidize to form shorter cross-linked molecules. When heated to
250C, they polymerize to a tough solid. Don't know if the already
oxidized oil of a dry painting (takes about ten months to oxidize
completely) would polymerize at the high temps. It does appear
that the tendency of this substance is to harden up rather than
melt.
There are two other considerations. Many metals are used in
pigments, and at extreme heat, they might do something. Hard to
tell what since they are embedded in the medium and isolated from
the air.
There may also be traces of solvents, such as turpentine, trapped
in the medium. These would likely vaporize and expand in the
heat. If they burst through the linseed oil film, they would
certainly ignite. If they caused the oil film to lose its
integrity, the pigments would also probably ignite, giving off
exotic colored smoke.
If any fire started, canvas and frame would of course go up in
smoke too. Your only hope is duct tape and sheets of plastic.
--
rich clancey r...@world.std.com
Scott P
wrote:
>Again this week I watched the Twilight Zone episode, a favorite of mine,
>called "The Midnight Sun".
I just wanted to point out that this is one of my favorite zone
episodes (very underrated). I love the effect of the paint melting
and the grim faces on everyone but the woman who was delirious at the
end.
Scott
Scott P
wrote:
>
>7. Would paintings really melt off the canvas like in the episode, cause
>that would be really neat to see.
>
I also wanted to point out that according to The Twilight Zone
Companion, they did that effect by actually painting a landscape on a
heater and turning a heater on.
Sometimes the ease of CGI makes us lose something.
Scott
GrapeApe
>clothes, stay under the covers, etc.
It is the same problem.. you can get extreme enough either way that your
resources cannot compensate. You could be naked at 90, or in an sweater at 50,
but eventually most people will use a little Air Conditioning or firewood if it
is handy. You could live in a cave at a steady 58 degrees year round.
Most biological activity (as we know it) works best in the range where water is
still a liquid. Most of the stuff we eat depends on certain temps in an even
narrower range to nudge it into its growth cycle, which is why most of us live
in temperate to tropical zones. Put the frog eggs in the fridge, the proteins
that carry out cell division can't form- they never become frogs. Apply this
climatology to plant life, and you have agriculture, which most of us depend on
these days.
Mark Brader
> > 2. Is there a temperature at which I couldn't light a fire anymore?
> Liquid Oxygen is very very cold, and very flammable.
Usually we use "flammable" to refer to something that will reaily combine
*with* oxygen. The term applied to oxygen is that it "supports combustion".
> I don't think there is a cold temperature at which you couldn't light
> a fire, assuming you had enough oxygen.
If it's cold enough to that oxygen is liquid (-297 to -361 F / -183 to
-218 C), you probably need to set up some sort of tube and sprayer ap-
paratus to direct it to the fuel. Otherwise it'd be too hard to keep
the right amount present near the reaction; remember, whatever oxygen
gets near the flame is going to vaporize and do its best to dissipate
into whatever's left of the atmosphere.
If it's cold enough to *freeze* oxygen (below the lower temperature
indicated above), of course, then the logistics get even worse.
(I'm reminded of Fritz Leiber's short story "A Pail of Air".)
Make things sufficiently cold and *everything* freezes (except helium,
which becomes a liquid). Then you need to keep a heat source with you
at all times, and you become such a hot object in comparison with the
rest of the world that you melt or vaporize the frozen atmosphere if
you just stay still for a little while, making the logistics even worse.
> > 6. Would the oceans evaporate at 100 + normal temps over an extended period
> > of time?
>
> I don't think so.
Air would hold a lot more water vapor than it does at normal temper-
atures, but if the web sites I googled are right (I didn't check their
calculations), the ocean has hundreds of times more mass than the
Earth's atmosphere. No way it will all be able to evaporate. Of
course, the weather would be much more fierce than now.
--
Mark Brader "How many pessimists end up by desiring
Toronto the things they fear, in order to prove
m...@vex.net that they are right." -- Robert Mallet
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Blinky the Shark
> I think there is wide variation in temperature tolerances and
> preferences. If you live in a mild climate (like Southern Calif),
> then you become much more sensitive to mild extremes (ie 65 is
> freezing and 80 is sweltering). I think there is universal agreement
> that cold
Yow. I have to disagree with that. I don't think anyone has only 15
degrees between what they'd call "freezing" and "sweltering". Example:
the skinny women with bad circulation that are always wearing sweaters
if the AC's below 75, and whining about it, until someone reduces the
cooling so everyone else has to sweat, would give an unusually high
point as "freezing", as in your example -- but I don't think they'd be
calling 80 "sweltering". Point: people have varying comfort zones, but
I doubt that anyone's freezing-to-sweltering range is only 15 degrees.
--
Blinky
Hot! New! Windows RG Released: http://snurl.com/WinRG (SWF Req'd)
Have A Safe Trip: http://snurl.com/ubj (SWF Req'd)
GrapeApe
>> preferences. If you live in a mild climate (like Southern Calif),
>> then you become much more sensitive to mild extremes (ie 65 is
>> freezing and 80 is sweltering). I think there is universal agreement
>> that cold
>
>Yow. I have to disagree with that. I don't think anyone has only 15
>degrees between what they'd call "freezing" and "sweltering". Example:
>the skinny women with bad circulation that are always wearing sweaters
>if the AC's below 75, and whining about it, until someone reduces the
>cooling so everyone else has to sweat, would give an unusually high
>point as "freezing", as in your example -- but I don't think they'd be
>calling 80 "sweltering". Point: people have varying comfort zones, but
>I doubt that anyone's freezing-to-sweltering range is only 15 degrees.
Those personal thermostats are easily reset also, to some extent.
Gary S. Callison
: Patrick Free wrote:
: > I think there is wide variation in temperature tolerances and
: > preferences. If you live in a mild climate (like Southern Calif),
: > then you become much more sensitive to mild extremes (ie 65 is
: > freezing and 80 is sweltering).
: degrees between what they'd call "freezing" and "sweltering". Example:
: the skinny women with bad circulation that are always wearing sweaters
: if the AC's below 75, and whining about it, until someone reduces the
: cooling so everyone else has to sweat, would give an unusually high
: point as "freezing", as in your example -- but I don't think they'd be
: calling 80 "sweltering". Point: people have varying comfort zones, but
: I doubt that anyone's freezing-to-sweltering range is only 15 degrees.
Blinky? My wife Ava.
Ava? Blinky.
Chat amongst yourselves. I'll be at the bar.
--
Huey
Blinky the Shark
>: Patrick Free wrote:
> Blinky? My wife Ava.
> Ava? Blinky.
No thanks.
No, I mean it. No thanks.
Greg Goss
>But, my specific questions arising from this episode:
>
>1. Which would be more devastating to humans - the daily temperature rising
>by 100 degrees, or dropping by 100 degrees? Would both be equally as fatal
>to humans?
Agriculture needs water. I dunno what plants can grow at 160 F, but
there are very few that can grow at -40F.
>2. Is there a temperature at which I couldn't light a fire anymore?
I've always liked a short story called "A Pail of Air", by I think
Fritz Lieber. Didn't believe it as plausible, but liked it.
>3. Would the vegetation of Earth be equally doomed by these two extremes?
>Would anything survive?
Spores, bacteria and some seeds easily survive freezing. I think some
insects do. Of course, they are not "really alive" until you thaw
them again. There are lots of extremophile bacteria that live in near
boiling water.
>
>4. Would there be any animals that I could still expect to see at 100 +
>normal, or 100 - normal? Animals that would still be able to adapt and live?
>Besides cockroaches?
>
>5. Would my electricity still flow at these extremes - would my refrigerator
>still dispense ice cubes? Would my space heater still work?
Electricity would work, so long as someone was shoving energy into the
other end of the wires. Hydro dams would freeze up, or dry up. Your
fridge would probably have a maximum delta temperature it could reach
by running all the time. You wouldn't get any further below the going
temperature than that. I don't know if there is a semi-plausible
temperature where the freon can no longer be liquified by pressure.
>6. Would the oceans evaporate at 100 + normal temps over an extended period
>of time?
The water would be dumped elsewhere and run back to the oceans. To an
extent, you might see additional cloud cover from all the evaporation.
Some people feel that global warming might be necessary to launch an
ice age. You need some way to get all that water to the mountain
tops. But that theory gets complex very fast.
>
>7. Would paintings really melt off the canvas like in the episode, cause
>that would be really neat to see.
>
>8. If humans would die off in this scenario - what would they die of?
>Starvation/dehydration or the direct effect of the heat/cold on the human
>body? And which would humans survive longer in - the too hot or too cold
>scenario?
Growing up in an environment where the temperature reached the upper
nineties many days each summer, we were trained to watch for
heatstroke. I think that the cold is more survivable in the short
haul. But if the changes happened slowly, I think that the ecosystem
could adjust more easily to the warmer scenario. You need water to
run an ecosystem.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>Gary S. Callison wrote:
>
>> Blinky the Shark (no....@box.invalid) wrote:
>
>>: Patrick Free wrote:
>
>>: > I think there is wide variation in temperature tolerances and
>>: > preferences. If you live in a mild climate (like Southern Calif),
>>: > then you become much more sensitive to mild extremes (ie 65 is
>>: > freezing and 80 is sweltering).
>
>>: Yow. I have to disagree with that. I don't think anyone has only 15
>>: degrees between what they'd call "freezing" and "sweltering". Example:
>>: the skinny women with bad circulation that are always wearing sweaters
>>: if the AC's below 75, and whining about it, until someone reduces the
>>: cooling so everyone else has to sweat, would give an unusually high
>>: point as "freezing", as in your example -- but I don't think they'd be
>>: calling 80 "sweltering". Point: people have varying comfort zones, but
>>: I doubt that anyone's freezing-to-sweltering range is only 15 degrees.
>
>> Blinky? My wife Ava.
>
>> Ava? Blinky.
>
>> Chat amongst yourselves. I'll be at the bar.
>
>No thanks.
>
>No, I mean it. No thanks.
Turning down a chat with Ava is missing one of life's delights,
Blinky.
Boron
Patrick Free
> If it's cold enough to *freeze* oxygen (below the lower temperature
> indicated above), of course, then the logistics get even worse.
> (I'm reminded of Fritz Leiber's short story "A Pail of Air".)
>
That's a great story, although I am not sure how factual it is. Kim
(the original poster) would probably be interested in it.
Patrick
groo
>
>
> 5. Would my electricity still flow at these extremes - would my refrigerator
> still dispense ice cubes? Would my space heater still work?
>
100F colder - Your electricity will flow even better than ever
(presuming, as someone else pointed out, that there are generators
running somewhere to provide it, and the crazed mobs haven't torn down
the power poles or something). Electrical resistance in a metal usually
declines with lowered temperatures, so the power grid would distribute
electricity more efficiently if the world was a cooler place. It has to
get REALLY cold for superconductivity, though. Your measly -30F wouldn't
cut it. The cold would make the insulation on many home products
brittle, so don't move anything that's plugged in.
Cold related contraction would probably cause a lot of connection issues
in general inside your house, but the stuff outside should be rated and
constructed to handle it OK. Your light bulbs would probably fail a bit
sooner than normally. Some consumer electronic devices (stereos, DVD
players, etc.) would not start up correctly or at all, as most are not
spec'd to sub-freezing temperatures and might not operate properly until
there had been enough current flow for self-heating to occur, or might
never work because they don't self heat enough.
100F hotter - Electrical resistance in the wires would go up, but it
would still flow. The vast majority of insulators won't break down at
these temperatures, although some would get tacky. Some consumer
electronic devices would not work properly because they would be outside
of their rated specifications. Light bulb lifetime might be slightly
improved because of the lessened thermal shock at startup and because
the filament current would be slightly lower, but it is possible that
this could be more than offset by the faster rate of metal
diffusion/evaporation.
100F colder - I doubt that the water pipes leading to your refrigerator
would be insulated well enough to prevent them from freezing up, so the
automatic ice cube maker wouldn't have any water to freeze into cubes
for you. If you filled it up manually, however, it should work just
ducky. Or you could just put some liquid water into the trays and set
them on the counter and wait for it to freeze, since the environment
would be colder than the freezing point of water.
100F hotter - Your standard home refrigerator/freezer very probably
doesn't have the ability to cool the interior to below 32F when the
kitchen environment is 170F.
100F colder - Your space heater will still work, but at -30F it probably
won't be sufficient to keep you warm. As noted above, though, you
probably shouldn't move it around, and the lifetime will be reduced
slightly (see lightbulb discussion above).
100F hotter - Your space heater would work just fine, although you
presumably wouldn't care. No, you can't use it to cool off.
Kim
"Patrick Free" <pf...@nukem.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.18d14c98cd5193b29896dd@news-server...
Thanks for pointing that out - I'll look for it at the bookstore this
weekend - and, if you know (someone does, I'm sure), what's that story about
the people who time travel back in time and step on a butterfly(?) and
change the whole future of the world? I don't *think* I dreamed this, but I
can't find it in any of my SciFi anthologies. (Which, of course, is
difficult when I can't remember the author or the title.)
Carl Fink
> Thanks for pointing that out - I'll look for it at the bookstore this
> weekend - and, if you know (someone does, I'm sure), what's that story about
> the people who time travel back in time and step on a butterfly(?) and
> change the whole future of the world? I don't *think* I dreamed this, but I
> can't find it in any of my SciFi anthologies. (Which, of course, is
> difficult when I can't remember the author or the title.)
Ray Bradbury, "The Sound of Thunder."
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
Patrick Free
says...
> In article <I_W9a.5418$J51.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Kim wrote:
>
> > Thanks for pointing that out - I'll look for it at the bookstore this
> > weekend - and, if you know (someone does, I'm sure), what's that story about
> > the people who time travel back in time and step on a butterfly(?) and
> > change the whole future of the world? I don't *think* I dreamed this, but I
> > can't find it in any of my SciFi anthologies. (Which, of course, is
> > difficult when I can't remember the author or the title.)
>
> Ray Bradbury, "The Sound of Thunder."
>
There was a great Simpson's episode that followed the same theme. Here
is the short synopsis:
Patrick
--
From Treehouse of Horror V
Second segment title: "Time and Punishment"
It's another beautiful Springfield morning. Homer waxes philosophical
around the breakfast table.
Homer: You know, Marge, I've had my share of troubles, but sitting here
now with you and the kids in our cozy home in this beautiful free
country...it just makes me feel that I'm really a lucky guy.
Lisa: Dad! Your hand is jammed in the toaster!
[everyone screams; Homer runs around]
Homer: Aah! Get it off! Get it off! [slams it into things] Get it off
of me!
[throws it off, sighs, slumps down to floor]
Bart: Dad! It's in there again!
-- Three times lucky, "Treehouse of Horror V"
Homer takes the battered toaster down to the basement.
Homer: This shouldn't be too hard to fix...with the right tools.
[breaks it open with a rock]
-- Homer repairs the family toaster, "Treehouse of Horror V"
The sun rises the next day as Homer makes final repairs.
Homer: There...better than new!
[puts final panel on toaster; inside lights blink]
Now to take her for a test toast.
[pops bread in; toaster flashes]
What the --
[he grabs it; they both disappear]
[they fly down a swirly vortex with clocks around them]
Look at that! I'm the first non-Brazilian person to travel
backwards through time.
Mr. Peabody: Correction, Homer: you're the second.
Sherman: That's right, Mr. Peabody!
Mr. Peabody: Quiet, you.
-- Brazilian? Huh?, "Treehouse of Horror V"
Homer arrives in the dinosaur age.
Homer: I've gone back to the time when dinosaurs weren't just confined
to zoos!
-- "Treehouse of Horror V"
A pterodactyl flies overhead, and Homer begins to panic.
Homer: Aah! OK, don't panic -- remember the advice your father gave you
on your wedding day.
[remembers Abe with hair and a tuxedo]
Abe: If you ever travel back in time, don't step on anything because
even the tiniest change can alter the future in ways you can't
imagine.
Homer: Fine. As long as I stand perfectly still and don't touch
anything, I won't destroy the future.
[a mosquito flies in]
Stupid bug! You go squish now! [swats it]
-- Touching and swatting are different, "Treehouse of Horror V"
Homer realizes what he's done. "But that was just one little
insignificant mosquito. That can't change the future, right? Right?"
he asks a passing bearlike creature, who shrugs and grunts "I dunno."
The toast pops and Homer finds himself back in his basement.
Homer: Phew! I'm back. [walks up stairs to kitchen where family eats
breakfast]
Aw, my loving family! Nothing's changed.
[a buzzer goes off; a TV screen morphs from the floor]
Ned: [on TV] Heidely-ho, slaverinos!
Family: Okily dokily.
Homer: Hey, what the hell is that geek Flanders doing on TV?
[a siren goes off]
Ned: Oh! I see by the Big Board we got a Negative Nellie in Sector
Two. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask the whole family to
kind of freeze and prepare for Re-Neducation.
Bart: Don't you remember, Dad? Flanders is the unquestioned lord and
master of the world.
Homer: D'oh!
-- Apparently, Homer forgot, "Treehouse of Horror V"
The house rumbles as a giant flying truck loads it onto itself, secures
it, and flies off into the "Re-Neducation Center".
Ned: [on a TV] OK, everybody, let's see some biiig smiles!
[hooks descend on audience, forcing their cheeks apart]
Just relax and let the hooks do their work.
Homer: [to man next to him] What the hell are you smiling at?
-- Same thing as you, "Treehouse of Horror V"
Afterwards, Homer massages his cheeks as he stands in a room with many
other men clad in green and pink.
Ned: [on a TV] Now, in case all that smiling didn't cheer you up,
there's one thing that never fails: a nice glass of warm
milk, a little nap -- and a total frontal lobotomy.
Moe: [slowly] It's not so bad, Homer. They...go in through your
nose and...they let you keep the piece of brain they cut out.
Look!
[holds up a jar with a piece of brain in it]
Ooh! Hello! Hello there! Who's that big man there? Who's
that?
Bart+Lisa: [droning] Join us, father.
Marge: [droning] It's bliiiissss...
Homer: Nooo!
-- How to raise Homer's IQ, "Treehouse of Horror V"
Homer runs off in a panic as another siren goes off. Some ferocious
attack dogs are released; they chase him voraciously.
[Homer gets chased by dogs]
Homer: Oh no, they're gaining on me. Wait! I have an idea!
[reaches into shirt, pulls out wieners]
These wieners will give me the quick energy I need to escape.
[eats them, pours on speed]
-- Homer revolts against Re-Neducation, "Treehouse of Horror V"
"I gotta go back...fix future!" he cries, finding the toaster again and
pushing the handle down.
[Homer arrives in the past]
Homer: This time I'm not going to touch a thing.
[a tyrannosaurus rex attacks him]
Aah! [hopping away] Mustn't crush...mustn't kill...made it!
[sits on a fish that walks out of the water]
Ohh, I wish, I wish I hadn't killed that fish.
-- Homer "Theodore" Simpson, "Treehouse of Horror V"
The toaster pops and Homer is transported back to the present.
Homer: [walking into empty kitchen] Hey, where is everybody?
[giant Lisa peeps through window, rips roof off house]
Bart: Hey...there's a bug that looks like Dad. Let's kill it!
Lisa: [gruff] OK.
-- Ask a question..., "Treehouse of Horror V"
The giant children's fists pound the floor as Homer runs off and
transports back in time again. He arrives panting, only to have the
tyrannosaur threaten him again -- but this time he sneezes. The
dinosaur sniffles, then sneezes and collapses. All the dinosaurs do the
same, dropping dead in a long line. "This is gonna cost me," Homer
rues.
Arriving back in the present, he notices the layout of the house has
changed for the richer.
Homer: D'oh! I mean...hey.
Bart: Good morning, Father dear. [hands him comics] Hope you're well.
Lisa: Are we taking the new Lexus to Aunt Patty and Selma's funeral
today?
Homer: Hmm, fabulous house, well-behaved kids, sisters-in-law dead,
luxury sedan...woo hoo! I hit the jackpot. [sits down] Marge,
dear, would you kindly pass me a donut?
Marge: Donut? What's a donut?
Homer: Aah! Aah! [pushes toaster handle, disappears]
[donuts start to fall from the sky]
Marge: Hmm. It's raining again.
-- Donuts keep falling on my head, "Treehouse of Horror V"
Homer arrives home again and opens the door to be greeted by Willy.
Willy: You're still not in your own world, Homer! I can get you home,
but you have to do exactly as I -- argh!
[Maggie axes him]
Maggie: [James Earl Jones voice] This is indeed a disturbing universe.
-- And how, "Treehouse of Horror V"
In the past, Homer yells angrily, "Don't touch anything? I'll touch
whatever I feel like!", smashing plants and squishing creatures left and
right. In the present, his house changes rapidly among an igloo, a
stone house, the original McDonald's, an underwater house, a boot, and a
Bart Sphinx. The two green aliens watch from their spaceship.
Kang: Foolish earthling...totally unprepared for the effects of time
travel.
[aliens laugh, then change into Sherman and Mr. Peabody]
Kang: [in Sherman's voice] What happened to us, Kodos?
Kodos: [in Mr. Peabody's voice] Quiet, you.
-- Homer's not the only unprepared one, "Treehouse of Horror V"
Homer finally arrives back panting and walks slowly up the basement
steps.
Marge: Good morning, dear.
Homer: What's my name? What color is the sky? What of donuts? What?!
For the love of God, tell me!
Marge: Homer, the sky is blue, donuts are plentiful, Friday is T.G.I.F.
night on ABC. What's gotten into you?
Homer: Nothing...nothing at all. Let's just eat.
[everyone but Homer eats with long forked tongues]
Homer: Ehh, close enough.
-- A world without cutlery, "Treehouse of Horror V"
[End of Act Two. Time: 15:55]
groo
>
> Thanks for pointing that out - I'll look for it at the bookstore this
> weekend - and, if you know (someone does, I'm sure), what's that story about
> the people who time travel back in time and step on a butterfly(?) and
> change the whole future of the world? I don't *think* I dreamed this, but I
> can't find it in any of my SciFi anthologies. (Which, of course, is
> difficult when I can't remember the author or the title.)
>
You didn't dream it, but I don't remember the title/author either. The
time travel company has taken great pains to set up a hunting expedition
where a dino who was going to die soon of natural causes is the prey,
and a walkway etc. is set up to ensure that nothing else is harmed.
Something goes wrong (because the shooter is a jerk, IIRC) and hilarity
ensues.
GrapeApe
>weekend - and, if you know (someone does, I'm sure), what's that story about
>the people who time travel back in time and step on a butterfly(?) and
>change the whole future of the world? I don't *think* I dreamed this, but
>I
>can't find it in any of my SciFi anthologies. (Which, of course, is
>difficult when I can't remember the author or the title.)
I think it may be Ray Bradbury. It was adapted in EC comics.
us...@domain.invalid
From memory here, 'The Delicate Sound of Thunder' ... wait that's a
Pink Floyd song it turns out. Heh it's actually A sound og Thunder by
Bradbury.
You can read it here -> http://www.sba.muohio.edu/snavely/415/thunder.htm
Bill Kinkaid
>7. Would paintings really melt off the canvas like in the episode, cause
>that would be really neat to see.
Never mind that, would glass flow?
Bill in Vancouver
Sean Houtman
>In article <MPG.18d009707f5bfbe9896da@news-server>, Patrick Free
><pf...@nukem.com> writes:
>
>> don't know of any vegetaion that can survive at 172. I think there
>>are a few (very few) arctic plants that survive in the -28 range.
>
>According to http://www.taloyoak.com/arctic-plants.htm the list of plants
>that
>survive on the tundra include arctic cotton, arctic heather, yellow arnica,
>purple saxifrage,
>mountain sorrel, arctic poppy.
I had[1] a friend who wrote a book called Flowering Plants of the High Arctic
that had a bunch of her paintings of arctic plants from some big old island up
at the tippy top of Canada. Don't bother looking for it at Amazon, it isn't
there, it was a rather small press run, and she misspelled my name when she
signed it for me.
Sean
[1] Gesina (Nikki) Threlkeld was about 96 ten years ago. I don't think she is
still alive.
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
Kajikit
in alt.fan.cecil-adams on 6 Mar 2003 04:03:33 GMT
>Patrick Free wrote:
>
>> I think there is wide variation in temperature tolerances and
>> preferences. If you live in a mild climate (like Southern Calif),
>> then you become much more sensitive to mild extremes (ie 65 is
>> freezing and 80 is sweltering). I think there is universal agreement
>> that cold
>
>Yow. I have to disagree with that. I don't think anyone has only 15
>degrees between what they'd call "freezing" and "sweltering". Example:
>the skinny women with bad circulation that are always wearing sweaters
>if the AC's below 75, and whining about it, until someone reduces the
>cooling so everyone else has to sweat, would give an unusually high
>point as "freezing", as in your example -- but I don't think they'd be
>calling 80 "sweltering". Point: people have varying comfort zones, but
>I doubt that anyone's freezing-to-sweltering range is only 15 degrees.
Well, over 30C is definitely HOT (35+ is sweltering) and 15 is cold
(less than 15 is bloody freezing) but then that's celsius not
Farenheit and I don't know how much difference it makes!
My comfort zone is 20-30...
--
To err is human... to really foul things up add kitten and stir.
Karen AKA Kajikit
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Kajikit
alt.fan.cecil-adams on Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:21:44 -0500
I think that's a pretty good answer then... sometimes a spade really
IS a spade.
artyw
>
> 3. Would the vegetation of Earth be equally doomed by these two extremes?
> Would anything survive?
There are some organisms that live near thermal vents or in hot
springs that could possibly stand the +100 over normal temps (mostly
bacteria and a few other critters)
Greg Goss
>I had[1] a friend who wrote a book called Flowering Plants of the High Arctic
>that had a bunch of her paintings of arctic plants from some big old island up
>at the tippy top of Canada. Don't bother looking for it at Amazon, it isn't
>there,
I should hope not. Our big old islands belong on eBay, not Amazon.
Binyamin Dissen
:>Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> dazzled us with brilliant prose
:>in alt.fan.cecil-adams on 6 Mar 2003 04:03:33 GMT
:>>Patrick Free wrote:
:>>> I think there is wide variation in temperature tolerances and
:>>> preferences. If you live in a mild climate (like Southern Calif),
:>>> then you become much more sensitive to mild extremes (ie 65 is
:>>> freezing and 80 is sweltering). I think there is universal agreement
:>>> that cold
:>>Yow. I have to disagree with that. I don't think anyone has only 15
:>>degrees between what they'd call "freezing" and "sweltering". Example:
:>>the skinny women with bad circulation that are always wearing sweaters
:>>if the AC's below 75, and whining about it, until someone reduces the
:>>cooling so everyone else has to sweat, would give an unusually high
:>>point as "freezing", as in your example -- but I don't think they'd be
:>>calling 80 "sweltering". Point: people have varying comfort zones, but
:>>I doubt that anyone's freezing-to-sweltering range is only 15 degrees.
:>Well, over 30C is definitely HOT (35+ is sweltering) and 15 is cold
:>(less than 15 is bloody freezing) but then that's celsius not
:>Farenheit and I don't know how much difference it makes!
:>My comfort zone is 20-30...
I can give my data points.
Born in Chicago.
When I lived in LA I would be wearing short sleeves when people around me were
wearing parkas.
The transplants said that after time I would lose my ability to handle the
weather but I only lived there a few years.
In Jerusalem, with the range 0C-30C or so, I do wear jackets in the winter. I
visit Chicago during the winter with no major issues.
My comfort zone is a bit lower than yours.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Al Yellon
news:cr197v8fmcehpqb9d...@4ax.com...
>
> When I lived in LA I would be wearing short sleeves when people around me
were
> wearing parkas.
>
> The transplants said that after time I would lose my ability to handle the
> weather but I only lived there a few years.
>
> In Jerusalem, with the range 0C-30C or so, I do wear jackets in the
winter. I
> visit Chicago during the winter with no major issues.
I remember being in Los Angeles one year in early January, and going out in
the evening. It was probably about 50 degrees F.
I was dressed in a light jacket. Everyone else I noticed was wearing gloves,
and some in heavy parkas.
--
"If you're not part of the future, then get out of the way." -- John
Mellencamp
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++
Rants, comments, reviews: || To contact me use the following:
http://www.yellon.org/links.htm || ayellon (at) colgatealumni.org
RM Mentock
> I was dressed in a light jacket. Everyone else I noticed was wearing gloves,
> and some in heavy parkas.
When I first moved from Wyoming via Colorado to North Carolina, my
brother came out to visit at Thanksgiving, and we went to the beach.
We were in swim trunks and playing football in the surf, and folks
would stroll past us in sweatsuits, caps, scarfs and gloves.
--
RM Mentock
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. -- B.R.
Al Yellon
news:3E74BA16...@mindspring.com...
> Al Yellon wrote:
>
> > I was dressed in a light jacket. Everyone else I noticed was wearing
gloves,
> > and some in heavy parkas.
>
> When I first moved from Wyoming via Colorado to North Carolina, my
> brother came out to visit at Thanksgiving, and we went to the beach.
> We were in swim trunks and playing football in the surf, and folks
> would stroll past us in sweatsuits, caps, scarfs and gloves.
Which reminds me, on that same trip to southern California, we went to the
beach one day, it was in the upper 60's and sunny.
There was absolutely no one else on that stretch of beach, near Santa
Monica, which would on a summer day be packed with people.
RM Mentock
> Which reminds me, on that same trip to southern California, we went to the
> beach one day, it was in the upper 60's and sunny.
>
> There was absolutely no one else on that stretch of beach, near Santa
> Monica, which would on a summer day be packed with people.
Yeah, that's nice too. Winter beaches are usually smaller, but
the lack of crowds makes up for it, if you like the weather
Carl Fink
Celsius) degrees out. I was walking along behind some teenagers in
London and one of them suddenly exclaimed "It's bloody cold!" I was
in dockers and a polo shirt, they were all wearing jackets, hats,
etc.
And I'm from Florida!
Opus the Penguin
> I remember being in Los Angeles one year in early January, and
> going out in the evening. It was probably about 50 degrees F.
>
> I was dressed in a light jacket. Everyone else I noticed was
> wearing gloves, and some in heavy parkas.
That seems unusual to me. I don't think most people in L.A. even own a
heavy parka. If they do, they wouldn't bother to break it out for 50
degrees F. I doubt I ever saw a heavy parka in two years at UCLA or the
two at UC Irvine.
--
Opus the Penguin
"Dude, buy a vowel. You're being a stupid-head." - Huey
Al Yellon
news:Xns9340B426CBD33op...@127.0.0.1...
> "Al Yellon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > I remember being in Los Angeles one year in early January, and
> > going out in the evening. It was probably about 50 degrees F.
> >
> > I was dressed in a light jacket. Everyone else I noticed was
> > wearing gloves, and some in heavy parkas.
>
> That seems unusual to me. I don't think most people in L.A. even own a
> heavy parka. If they do, they wouldn't bother to break it out for 50
> degrees F. I doubt I ever saw a heavy parka in two years at UCLA or the
> two at UC Irvine.
In fact, the area where we were, where we saw these parkas, was near UCLA.
Blinky the Shark
> "Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9340B426CBD33op...@127.0.0.1...
>> "Al Yellon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> > I remember being in Los Angeles one year in early January, and
>> > going out in the evening. It was probably about 50 degrees F.
>> > I was dressed in a light jacket. Everyone else I noticed was
>> > wearing gloves, and some in heavy parkas.
>> That seems unusual to me. I don't think most people in L.A. even own a
>> heavy parka. If they do, they wouldn't bother to break it out for 50
>> degrees F. I doubt I ever saw a heavy parka in two years at UCLA or the
>> two at UC Irvine.
> In fact, the area where we were, where we saw these parkas, was near UCLA.
Real, live, Chicago parkas? Lots of heavy lining, lined hoods, etc?
--
Blinky
Hot! New! Windows RG Released: http://snurl.com/WinRG (SWF Req'd)
Real iMac Origin: http://web.newsguy.com/dogfish/images/imac.jpg
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>"Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9340B426CBD33op...@127.0.0.1...
>> "Al Yellon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I remember being in Los Angeles one year in early January, and
>> > going out in the evening. It was probably about 50 degrees F.
>> >
>> > I was dressed in a light jacket. Everyone else I noticed was
>> > wearing gloves, and some in heavy parkas.
>>
>> That seems unusual to me. I don't think most people in L.A. even own a
>> heavy parka. If they do, they wouldn't bother to break it out for 50
>> degrees F. I doubt I ever saw a heavy parka in two years at UCLA or the
>> two at UC Irvine.
>
>In fact, the area where we were, where we saw these parkas, was near UCLA.
The Hub bought his heavyduty winter parka in Rachco Palos Verdes last
year. Everyone in my LA & environs family has winter gear. They don't
break it out often, but it does get used.
Boron
Al Yellon
news:slrnb7arqo....@dora.blinkynet.net...
> Al Yellon wrote:
>
> > "Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9340B426CBD33op...@127.0.0.1...
> >> "Al Yellon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >> > I remember being in Los Angeles one year in early January, and
> >> > going out in the evening. It was probably about 50 degrees F.
>
> >> > I was dressed in a light jacket. Everyone else I noticed was
> >> > wearing gloves, and some in heavy parkas.
>
> >> That seems unusual to me. I don't think most people in L.A. even own a
> >> heavy parka. If they do, they wouldn't bother to break it out for 50
> >> degrees F. I doubt I ever saw a heavy parka in two years at UCLA or the
> >> two at UC Irvine.
>
> > In fact, the area where we were, where we saw these parkas, was near
UCLA.
>
> Real, live, Chicago parkas? Lots of heavy lining, lined hoods, etc?
Yup. OK, not *everyone* -- I may have been exaggerating. But there were
enough people with them on that it made me take notice.
Blinky the Shark
> "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnb7arqo....@dora.blinkynet.net...
>> Al Yellon wrote:
>> > "Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns9340B426CBD33op...@127.0.0.1...
>> >> "Al Yellon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >> > I remember being in Los Angeles one year in early January, and
>> >> > going out in the evening. It was probably about 50 degrees F.
>> >> > I was dressed in a light jacket. Everyone else I noticed was
>> >> > wearing gloves, and some in heavy parkas.
>> >> That seems unusual to me. I don't think most people in L.A. even own a
>> >> heavy parka. If they do, they wouldn't bother to break it out for 50
>> >> degrees F. I doubt I ever saw a heavy parka in two years at UCLA or the
>> >> two at UC Irvine.
>> > In fact, the area where we were, where we saw these parkas, was near
> UCLA.
>> Real, live, Chicago parkas? Lots of heavy lining, lined hoods, etc?
> Yup. OK, not *everyone* -- I may have been exaggerating. But there were
> enough people with them on that it made me take notice.
That's a bit better.
And I've seen it freeze in L.A.
And we do have mountains. Gets cold up there, you know. In the snow.
Al Yellon
> And I've seen it freeze in L.A.
>
> And we do have mountains. Gets cold up there, you know. In the snow.
True. Just how far is Mt. Wilson from downtown L.A.?
Blinky the Shark
> "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnb7c687....@dora.blinkynet.net...
>> And I've seen it freeze in L.A.
>> And we do have mountains. Gets cold up there, you know. In the snow.
> True. Just how far is Mt. Wilson from downtown L.A.?
Fifteen miles.
Al Yellon
> Al Yellon wrote:
>
> > "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:slrnb7c687....@dora.blinkynet.net...
> >> And I've seen it freeze in L.A.
>
> >> And we do have mountains. Gets cold up there, you know. In the snow.
>
> > True. Just how far is Mt. Wilson from downtown L.A.?
>
> Fifteen miles.
Not far at all.
Blinky the Shark
> "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnb7cr41....@dora.blinkynet.net...
>> Al Yellon wrote:
>> > "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:slrnb7c687....@dora.blinkynet.net...
>> >> And I've seen it freeze in L.A.
>> >> And we do have mountains. Gets cold up there, you know. In the snow.
>> > True. Just how far is Mt. Wilson from downtown L.A.?
>> Fifteen miles.
> Not far at all.
Not outta site; not outta mind.
JB
>
> "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnb7cr41....@dora.blinkynet.net...
> > Al Yellon wrote:
> >
> > > "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:slrnb7c687....@dora.blinkynet.net...
> > >> And I've seen it freeze in L.A.
> >
> > >> And we do have mountains. Gets cold up there, you know. In the snow.
> >
> > > True. Just how far is Mt. Wilson from downtown L.A.?
> >
> > Fifteen miles.
>
> Not far at all.
The only cold-weather gear owned by many SC residents is the heavy-duty
stuff they buy for their winter forays into the mountains. So when it
turns brisk on the coast, that's all they have available. --JB
Blinky the Shark
> Al Yellon wrote:
>> > Fifteen miles.
>> Not far at all.
That might be a factor here, too. I've lived in Los Angeles for 22
years, and I don't find it to be Parka City. Granted, the natives are
usually more coated than I am, with me coming from a colder climate and
being rather warm-blooded even there), but not to the extent of looking
like they're in International Falls MN in January, every time it gets
down to 50 degrees.
Bill Kinkaid
Where did they come up with the name eBay, anyhow? And did the
Hudson's Bay Company ever try to do anything about it?
Bill in Vancouver
Greg Goss
>Where did they come up with the name eBay, anyhow? And did the
>Hudson's Bay Company ever try to do anything about it?
I think he already had the name for personal stuff before he thought
of the auction. There must be a history faq somewhere there, but I
haven't looked.
GrapeApe
>>Hudson's Bay Company ever try to do anything about it?
>
>I think he already had the name for personal stuff before he thought
>of the auction. There must be a history faq somewhere there, but I
>haven't looked.
He had the site (which did the auction thing) for personal reasons before, but
it wasn't named ebay until later. Think it was called something like
Auctionwatch or such.