In article <48b53f77$0$28781$88260bb3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Jon <jonmein@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>My question for the hunker down in bunker survivalists:
>>
>> Address young Christopher. Or use m.s.
>
>Not really my interest.
Learn to talk to direct sources.
I can see you did finally reach him.
>> How high are NL's mountains?
>
>Our NL friends said about 1000 feet. Acquired in one
>of the rearrangement of borders after a war. Which one?
>Also told, source of coal...
>
>Wikipedia says: Highest Point - Vaalserberg
>(322 m above sea level) ( 50°45'19?N, 6°01'03?E)
Is it a hill?
>>>I took a 360 degree panorama in the De Hoge Veluwe.
>>>Open grasslands there reminded me of Texas panhandle.
>> I can believe that aspects of them look like the Sacrmento river delta.
>> Minus the windmills. We have 2 wind mills in SF GG park.
>
>NL seemed mostly rural or urban. No backcountry, per se,
>the national park notwithstanding. Raises a question, perhaps
>more obvious in NL than elsewhere, but what is western
>European backcountry?
The question of National Parks in Europe is tricky and inconsistent.
I know that Italy and Spain have serious controversies about their
designated areas. Most for instance don't allow even over night tent
camping in the sense of US park backpacking. They have campgrounds,
quite famous in some cases, but they tend to be associated with villages
outside or near by Parks.
Count Siberia as backcountry.
High Sweden (and perhaps Norway) has mosquitos which might rival Alaska,
but maybe a bit less as some drainage has likely occured. Most of the
largest human eating threats are likely contained by urban areas (zoos)
and likely extinct despite some idealists for reintroduction.
The North Sea is hostile in winter.
High parts of the Alps, coastal Norwegian mtns in winter have serious
avalanchhes and are hostile (especially in winter military manuveurs).
But would these be called backcountry? At best only idealistically.
>>>All the HHGG references I see to the B-ark Golgafinchans
>>>say they did survive as human ancestors.
>> Even in the program they deduced the ape creatures to be
>> your relatives.
>Hmmm, this is from the 6th episode of the radio series:
>[ speaking about the B-ark Golgafinchans ]
>Ford: Face up to it Aurthur, those Zeebs over there are
> your ancestors, not these cavemen. Put the Scrabble
> away. It won't save the human race, because Mr Ugh
> here is not destined to be the human race.
>
>The book says the many of the Golgafinchans dies out,
>but some intermixed with the cavemen, and "must have
>survived".
A fiction author can have any outcome he wishes.
So both seem to have compatible DNA.
From my DB:
I think the idea of art kills creativity.
--D.N.A.
>>>Imagination, they say, knows no limits.
>> [Einstein twisted]
>
>I tend to think most peoples' imagination is actaully quite
>constrained. Imagination assists, perhaps, but does not
>replace reasoning, science, knowledge,...
Yes, most people are quite socially inhibited. We only mouth the basic
ideas of freedom.
The game I play is a very interesting one. It's imagination in a
straightjacket, which is this: that it has to agree with the known laws
of physics. ... It requires imagination to think of what's possible, and
then it requires an analysis back, checking to see whether it fits,
whether its allowed, according to what's known, okay?
--Richard Feynman
from No Ordinary Genius
>> it's the fact that there are limits which makes knowledge possible.
>
>But many things we knew were so, we now know were not so.
So you think we have information fads which change like stop lights?
Like basic elements?
>> There was a great Chinese quote [...] were every thing
>> possible, then that makes hard things less interesting as goals.
>
>Agreed. But imagination is not about "the possible", though.
Sure, why not?
>> I wish I could find that quote.
>
>I've seen it or something similar.
If you find it let me know. Check with me first.
>There are Disney quotes about imagination. Not my favorites:
>"It's kind of fun to do the impossible."
>"If you can dream it, you can do it."
No, I would not quite go that far. That's Gary wi****ng things and Ed
point out to him that it takes time to learn how to ski.
That's a linguist problem: the possible impossible.
Disney was a practical kind of guy, he just loved impresing children.
And making a buck doing that.
>> Go with Dirty Harry.
>
>Not today. I feel lucky. %^)
>I think I'll go with Fred Rogers today.
I'm listening to a friend's YouTube with battling robots to classical
music...
--
|
