Stuff & Things

[1dave]

Have Gun. Will Travel - Episode # 1
14 September 1957




Song by Johnny Western.

Have Gun – Will Travel is an American Western television series that aired on CBS from 1957 through 1963. It was rated number three or number four in the Nielsen ratings every year of its first four seasons.[1] It was one of the few television shows to spawn a successful radio version. The radio series debuted November 23, 1958.

Have Gun – Will Travel was created by Sam Rolfe and Herb Meadow and produced by Frank Pierson, Don Ingalls, Robert Sparks, and Julian Claman. There were 225 episodes of the television series, 24 written by Gene Roddenberry of Star Trek fame. Other contributors included Bruce Geller, Harry Julian Fink, Don Brinkley and Irving Wallace. Andrew V. McLaglen directed 101 episodes[2][3] and 19 were directed by series star Richard Boone.

Notable guest stars:

Victor McLaglen appeared in the first season as Mike O'Hare, an Irish architect trying to build a dam in the wilderness against the wishes of a nearby town in "The O'Hare Story". McLaglen was billed in the opening credits after Richard Boone. He was the father of HGWT's original and main director Andrew V. McLaglen.

Vincent Price appeared in "The Moor's Revenge".[7] Also a guest in that episode was Morey Amsterdam[8] of The Dick Van Dyke Show.

James Coburn[9] played the feared gunman Bill Sledge in "The Gladiators"[10]

Ben Johnson (actor)[11] appears in three episodes between 1960 and 1962.

George Kennedy appears in six segments.

John Carradine

Charles Bronson appeared in five different roles, from the second episode up to the last season. ("The Outlaw",[12] "The Man Who Wouldn't Talk"[13])

Angie Dickinson portrayed the angry Amy Bender in the fifth episode of the first season. A Matter Of Ethics.

Buddy Ebsen (The Beverly Hillbillies, Davy Crockett) played a ruthless marshal in "El Paso Stage", and Bram Holden in "The Brothers".

Vivi Janiss and Jay Novello were cast as a couple, Count and Countess Casares, in the 1962 episode, "The Exiles", in which Paladin is retained to recover $16 million in French bonds.[14]

Lee Van Cleef appeared in The Treasure and Face of A Shadow both in Season 6.

Harry Carey, Jr., who also appeared in Spin and Marty as Bill Burnett, was a regular in many film and television westerns, and appeared thirteen times on Have Gun – Will Travel.

Denver Pyle, best known as "Uncle Jesse" on The Dukes of Hazzard, appeared eight times. ("The Singer",[15] "The Wager"[16])

Harry Morgan, famous for Dragnet and M*A*S*H, appeared in "A Snare For Murder"[17] (Season 2, Episode 11) as a cranky, paranoid prospector.

Jack Lord appeared in the first episode, "Three Bells To Perdido," as the villain, Dave Enderby.[18]

June Lockhart was cast twice in the role of Dr. Phyllis Thackeray, first in the episode "No Visitors", and again in "The Return of Dr. Thackeray," which aired May 17, 1958.[19]

Dan Blocker appeared in "Gun Shy"[20] episode 29 of Season 1.

Pernell Roberts, before starring as Adam Cartwright on Bonanza and Trapper John McIntyre on Trapper John, M.D., was a scheming railroad employee in "Hey Boy's Revenge" which was episode 31 of the first season.

DeForest Kelley appeared in The Treasure mid Season 6.

Lon Chaney Jr.

Warren Oates

Martin Balsam

Sydney Pollack

William Conrad

Robert J. Wilke

Dyan Cannon

Michael Pate

Ken Curtis

Robert Blake

Harry Dean Stanton

Albert Salmi

Suzanne Pleshette

Jack Elam[21] appeared in "The Man Who Lost",[22] as did Mort Mills[23] and Ed Nelson.[24]

Werner Klemperer, famous for his portrayal of Colonel Klink in Hogan's Heroes, appeared in "Fragile".

Jena Engstrom appeared in three episodes, and her mother, Jean Engstrom, appeared in two episodes, in 1961 and 1962. Jena first appeared in the 1961 episode, "The Fatal Flaw", with guest stars Royal Dano and Allyn Joslyn. Her second appearance was with guest star Duane Eddy in the episode "The Education of Sarah Jane". Her third appearance was in "Alice" with (Jeanette Nolan. Jena's mother Jean Engstrom first appeared along with (John Fielder) in "The Gold Bar," and then in "Place for Abel Hix" with Robert Blake.

Kevin Hagen, who later portrayed Dr. Baker on Little House on the Prairie, appeared five times.[25]

Roy Barcroft, who portrayed Colonel Logan in the Spin and Marty segments of The Mickey Mouse Club, appeared in eleven episodes in various roles.

Hal Needham, stuntman and character actor, who later directed several successful films, appeared in twenty-six episodes.

English actor Ben Wright, appeared in six episodes. Wright regularly played Hey Boy in the radio version of HGWT.

Fintan Meyler appeared in four episodes, twice appearing as Pegeen Shannon.

Carol Thurston appeared twice, as Martha Whitehorse in "Winchester Quarantine" (1957) and as Nita in "Heritage of Anger" (1959).[26]

Johnny Crawford appeared in the first season's Christmas episode "The Hanging Cross" (1958).[27]

[1dave]

Planetary Evolution
The primary source of all free energy in the universe is the original gravitational potential of matter when it appeared, evenly-spread, in the very early universe due to the decay of the earlier, unstable ‘false vacuum’ (Lineweaver and Egan, 2008).

The second law of thermodynamics, when reinterpreted as a principle of maximum entropy production, stipulates that physical systems will tend to degrade gradients, and to develop systems to degrade them (and thus increase entropy, or disorder) more quickly (Dewar et al., 2014). However, as systems evolve there is typically a dialectic between mixing (the destruction of difference and gradients) and sorting (and thus the creation of new gradients).

In the case of the early universe it was the gravitational clumping of matter that allowed the emergence of non-equilibrium, producing ‘dissipative structures’ such as galaxies, solar systems and eventually planets (Lineweaver and Egan, 2008). As part of the onward rush towards overall disorder and entropy, these dissipative structures (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984) create local order (highly correlated states) and new gradients, thus greater complexity and informational order, including new kinds of motion.

The result at the scale of solar systems and planets is patterns that are specific and irreversible; planets are not just mixtures of different chemicals and states of matter, but have unique, divergent and emergent histories (DeLanda, 1992). We can see this in the diversity of planets in our own system, let alone those in extrasolar

5

planetary systems.

The Earth thus has to be seen as a body which emerged, evolved and continues to evolve in an ongoing dialectic between the intensive (differences and gradients) and the extensive (form and structure). Even before the formation of Earth, the accretion of the solar system from the solar nebula was already a great sorting which occurred through complex forms of mobility.

A key ‘saddle point’ dividing the mobility regions of any solar system is the ‘frost line’, beyond which solar heat is weak enough for volatiles such as water, carbon monoxide and methane to freeze. This is line is positioned differently for different volatiles and around different stars, but in our own solar system is at approximately 5 astronomical units (AU) from the sun – just outside the asteroid belt (1AU is the distance from the Sun to the Earth) (Prockter, 2005). The eventual effect of this was to produce a complex but ordered planetary system with gas and ice giants outside the frost line and small rocky planets within.

Inside the frost line, volatiles evaporate and smaller ‘terrestrial’ planets accrete from metals and heavier atoms; outside the frost line, giant planets form due to the greater number of solid particles and their ability to retain greater amounts of light gases (ibid.). From a planetary mobilities perspective this is also a sorting of powers of mobility: the creation of bodies which have different powers to move things around within themselves.

Planets, by definition, come to dominate their area of the solar system – and sometimes move to new stable orbits so they can do so (Soter, 2006). Isolated in the vacuum, planetary bodies follow the ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas of gravitational motion, guided by the absolute memory of reversible Newtonian mechanics.

Within themselves, however, their gravitational collapse into planetary bodies will produce energy gradients and far-from equilibrium conditions which favour the emergence of local order. Planets are bodies where the combination of fluid motion and solid durability creates information-rich pockets, where correlated states and motions such as those described in the last section can arise, endure and become more elaborate (Hidalgo, 2015).

Astronomers talk about the ‘Goldilocks’ or ‘habitable’ zone around stars which enjoys the temperatures enabling the emergence of water-based life; but such zones are just one of the many self-organising ‘mobility regions’ in which planets can acquire different powers of internal motion.

For planets and other astral bodies to ‘learn’ in this way – to have a unique and irreversible history of emergence – they need new ways of recording, recalling, learning and forgetting past mobilities.

As Prigogine and Stengers put it, classical dynamic systems such as those governing planetary motion in what the ancients called the ‘superlunary’ world of the heavens already know everything they need to know in order to move along their orbits, and can never forget it (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984, pp. 305–6).

But in the sublunary, far-from-equilibrium world of planetary becoming, what are needed for new mobility powers to develop are interacting systems of non-Newtonian memory: fluid memory (residing in the motion of flows, eddies or vortices), solid memory (in the stratigraphy, geodiversity and surface morphology of the solid earth, and in complex objects) and code memory (in DNA, culture with its arbitrary symbols or computational machines). If information is important for planetary mobilities, no less so is energy.

Energy as defined by modern science cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be higher or lower in quality, as defined by its availability to do ‘work’ – in effect, to move macroscopic objects or create macroscopic gradients. Chemical, electrical and mechanical energy are all forms of high-grade energy in this sense, whereas heat energy, the random motion of atoms and molecules, is low-grade energy. However, the amount of work that can actually be done by the energy in any system (for example a pressurised container) depends on the difference between the energetic levels of that system and those of its environment. This difference is termed ‘exergy’, the amount of energy that is available to do work in relation to a suitable reference state, and this decreases as entropy increases.

In the solar system, the primary reservoirs of exergy are the nuclear energy from fusible atoms in the sun and fissionable atoms in planetary bodies,

6

the gravitational and kinetic energy of the solar system, and the residual thermal energy remaining from its formation (Hermann, 2006, p. 1689). From these primary reservoirs, energy cascades into secondary reservoirs, a cascade which within planets is conditioned by their particular history of self-organisation. The outer planets – the gas giants Jupiter, Saturn and ice giants Uranus and Neptune – are so far from the sun that they receive little energy from it; instead, the motion of their atmospheres is driven mainly by the residual internal heat from compression and friction.

Despite their coldness, the availability of different chemical elements with different melting points allows the outer planets and their moons to have rocks, atmospheres, seas and hydrological cycles, just based on different chemistry. Their residual inner heat is also sufficient to sustain vertical temperature gradients that ensure that even the extremely cold atmosphere of Neptune, which only receives 1/900th of the solar energy per unit area that the Earth does, and is 55 K or −218°C at its cloud tops, nevertheless has the most violent weather in the solar system (Suomi et al., 1991).

The huge gravity wells of the outer planets also allow them to form highly complex satellite systems, with rings, shepherd moons that maintain ring boundaries and co-orbital moons that swap orbits (Spitale et al., 2006). As we explore the outer planets we are likely to find more and more unique mobility patterns in and around them.

Planets such as the Earth that formed and move within the frost line are very different. The higher temperatures closer to the sun do not mean more liquids and gases; instead, the greater power of the solar flux and solar wind strips volatiles away, making the inner planets smaller and more predominantly solid.

Inside the inner planets lies a world that is almost as cut off from the sun as the outer solar system. The insulating power of Earth’s silicate rocks means that seasonal changes in heat from the sun are not felt below a depth of 10-20m; from here downwards, the Earth is shaped by its own powers, especially the heat generated by its initial gravitational collapse, friction and nuclear decay.

The slow but powerful convection of the magma shapes the surface above it, slowly releasing heat from the interior and ensuring that the Earth does not, like Venus, periodically turn itself inside out, a cataclysmic forgetting which destroys the old surface and everything on it (Zalasiewicz, 2008, pp. 49-50).

But on and above the solid surface of the inner planets, the sun rules. The surface of the Earth, for example, receives nearly 2,000 times more energy from the sun than it does from the planet’s interior (Davies and Davies, 2010).

The inner planets are thus subject to a constant excess of electro-magnetic energy, and one which is unevenly spread across their spherical surfaces. Energy leaving the Earth system has to be equal to that arriving in it for its average temperature to remain relatively constant. But the majority of incoming solar energy works its way through the Earth system before it is converted to heat and radiated back out. Apart from the tidal movements caused by gravity, the major fluid motion on the earth – of the winds, the ocean and the wider water cycle – is driven by this solar energy, as radiative gradients produce temperature gradients, themselves producing pressure and density gradients, and thus motion (Kleidon, 2010).

In the next section we will look at this fluid mobility

[spiritstone]

lol

[1dave]

[1dave]

loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/zebra.html

Question: Can zebras be domesticated?
Answer:
No, zebras cannot be domesticated.

They are unpredictable and are known to attack people. To be domesticated, animals must meet certain criteria. For example, they must have a good disposition and should not panic under pressure. Zebras' unpredictable nature and tendency to attack preclude them from being good candidates for domestication. For more information about the criteria for domestication see : The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Animal Attraction Fact Sheet: Why were so few animals domesticable?

While attempts at domestication have failed, some individuals have had success training and even hybridizing zebras! Common zebra hybrids: Zorse (horse + zebra) and Zonkey (donkey + zebra). Zebra hybridization has actually been in existence at least a century. One of the pioneers in the field was J.C. Ewart, author of The Penycuik Experiments in 1899.

[bushmanbilly]

If this got out. The enviro's would be done.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2016 19:56:46 GMT -5 bushmanbilly said:

If this got out. The enviro's would be done.

Not sure I understand your point.

The information provided by the people whom know their environment so well, seems contradictory. At least to my city boy ears.

If the pole had actually shifted during the last lifetime, I would think more than these folks would know it.

Perhaps I just don't get it.

[bushmanbilly]

Oct 4, 2016 22:20:47 GMT -5 @shotgunner said:

Oct 4, 2016 19:56:46 GMT -5 bushmanbilly said:

If this got out. The enviro's would be done.

Not sure I understand your point.

The information provided by the people whom know their environment so well, seems contradictory. At least to my city boy ears.

If the pole had actually shifted during the last lifetime, I would think more than these folks would know it.

Perhaps I just don't get it.

They do know its happening. They just are trying to put their spin on it and blame it on climate change. They are trying hard though.

Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, commends the authors for adding to the discussion about climate science. Schmidt, who was not affiliated with the study, agrees that human activity has caused "detectable shifts in mass from ice sheet melt and groundwater extraction."
news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160408-climate-change-shifts-earth-poles-water-loss/

[Deleted]

Wait a moment.


Human activity has now changed the position of the north pole? Not magnetic north, but north that equals the axis we spin on actually points to a different place now? In a way
Large Enough the Inuit cannot navigate any more? That would have to be a big change. No?

Bullsnot. Astronomers would be all over this change. They calibrate their mounts off of this particular dataset.

I would be able to see it from my backyard using a hobby telescope. I wouldn't be able to align it to track stars or planets.

If I am wrong, and the position of the north pole has actually changed in a significant way, which came first? Climate change or pole change?

Billy. I still do not get it do I?

[1dave]

It must have been those big heavy dinosaurs that started it!

[metalsmith]

More than the Inuit are aware of this:
Scientific American

[metalsmith]

Oh that's it then - we all f****d. Except if you're near Yellowstone, where you'll be doubly f****d

Alternatively the sun will rise tomorrow...

[metalsmith]

Oct 5, 2016 12:15:42 GMT -5 @shotgunner said:

Wait a moment.


Human activity has now changed the position of the north pole? Not magnetic north, but north that equals the axis we spin on actually points to a different place now? In a way
Large Enough the Inuit cannot navigate any more? That would have to be a big change. No?

Bullsnot. Astronomers would be all over this change. They calibrate their mounts off of this particular dataset.

I would be able to see it from my backyard using a hobby telescope. I wouldn't be able to align it to track stars or planets.

If I am wrong, and the position of the north pole has actually changed in a significant way, which came first? Climate change or pole change?

Billy. I still do not get it do I?

I don't think this is attributed to human activity.

Last Easter I was stopping near the English Lake District. Near but quite far... and trying to work out which peaks had snow on them. I pulled out the map and bearing in mind I was (many years ago) SF trained and still pull out an occasional mountain marathon despite my ailments, do tend to know which side of the map is up.

So I trained my compass on the peaks - around 30 miles away and had some awful trouble. Eventually I had to refer to the web to find out the going rate for magnetic declination. It was huge - enough to throw the nav seriously off. I note the going rate is now only 2 degrees. Huh?!

[1dave]

Oct 6, 2016 3:41:02 GMT -5 metalsmith said:

More than the Inuit are aware of this:
Scientific American

The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.

"Such a flip is not instantaneous, but would take many hundred if not a few thousand years," Floberghagen told Live Science. "They have happened many times in the past."[50 Amazing Facts About Planet Earth]

Scientists already know that magnetic north shifts. Once every few hundred thousand years the magnetic poles flip so that a compass would point south instead of north. While changes in magnetic field strength are part of this normal flipping cycle, data from Swarm have shown the field is starting to weaken faster than in the past. Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought. As such, rather than the full flip occurring in about 2,000 years, as was predicted, the new data suggest it could happen sooner.

Floberghagen hopes that more data from Swarm will shed light on why the field is weakening faster now.

Still, there is no evidence that a weakened magnetic field would result in a doomsday for Earth. During past polarity flips there were no mass extinctions or evidence of radiation damage. Researchers think power grids and communication systems would be most at risk.

Earth's magnetic field acts like a giant invisible bubble that shields the planet from the dangerous cosmic radiation spewing from the sun in the form of solar winds. The field exists because Earth has a giant ball of iron at its core surrounded by an outer layer of molten metal. Changes in the core's temperature and Earth's rotation boil and swirl the liquid metal around in the outer core, creating magnetic field lines.

The movement of the molten metal is why some areas of the magnetic field strengthen while others weaken, Florberghagen said. When the boiling in one area of the outer core slows down, fewer currents of charged particles are released, and the magnetic field over the surface weakens.

"The flow of the liquid outer core almost pulls the magnetic field around with it," Floberghagen said. "So, a field weakening over the American continent would mean that the flow in the outer core below America is slowing down."

Ah, the things "scientists" refuse to see!

The field exists because Earth has a giant ball of iron at its core surrounded by an outer layer of molten metal.

EVERYTHING heavier than iron is at the core!

Iron 7.874
Gadolinium 7.895
Terbium 8.229
Dysprosium 8.55
Niobium 8.570
Cadmium 8.69
Holmium 8.795
Cobalt 8.86
Nickel 8.912
Copper 8.933
Erbium 9.066
Polonium 9.32
Ununhexium >9.32
Thulium 9.321
Bismuth 9.807
Ununpentium >9.807
Lutetium 9.84
Lawrencium >9.84
Actinium 10.07
Molybdenum 10.22
Silver 10.501
Lead 11.342
Technetium 11.50
Thorium 11.72
Thallium 11.85
Ununtrium >11.85
Palladium 12.020
Ruthenium 12.37
Rhodium 12.41
Livermorium 12.9 (predicted)
Hafnium 13.31
Einsteinium 13.5 (Estimate)
Curium 13.51
Mercury 13.5336
Ununbium >13.5336
Americium 13.69
Flerovium 14 (predicted)
Berkelium 14.79
Californium 15.10
Protactinium 15.37
Tantalum 16.654
Rutherfordium 18.1
Uranium 18.95
Tungsten 19.25
Gold 19.282
Roentgenium >19.282
Plutonium 19.84
Neptunium 20.25
Rhenium 21.02
Platinum 21.46
Darmstadtium >21.46
Osmium 22.610
Iridium 22.650
Seaborgium 35 (Estimate)
Meitnerium 35 (Estimate)
Bohrium 37 (Estimate)
Dubnium 39 (Estimate)
Hassium 41 (Estimate)
Fermium Unknown
Mendelevium Unknown
Nobelium Unknown
Copernicium (Element 112) unknown
Ununtrium (Element 113) unknown
Ununpentium (Element 115) unknown
Ununoctium (Element 118) Unknown

We don't know anything about how they interact!

The radioactive elements in the CORE are what has kept this planet hot for the past 4.5 Billion years!

Moving continents are much of the "flips."

[Deleted]

Nope.

Nothing short of a very large meteorite is changing this. Not ice melting, not cow farts, not every human in the world jumping in synchrony, not burning all the oil on the planet.

It's called precession. Google it.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2016 19:56:46 GMT -5 bushmanbilly said:

If this got out. The enviro's would be done.

Don't hang your hat on that one. I just rewatched it. Every single observation made can be utilised by the enviromaniacs as proof, but careful thought, to me, indicates all of those observations are in error, mostly just by standing in a different place. How could they know they are standing in the exact same place, at the same time, every year, for their entire life? Plus it is most likely, they made current observations and when asked to remember, they misremembered. I realise they live by the sun and navigation. But their needs aren't as precise as their observations.

I do notice they still find what they are looking for.

[1dave]

This book was originally published as a paperback by Ballentine-Fawcwtt in 1983. I found it valuable!

Where would "givers" be without "takers"?

The Givers & The Takers Paperback – April 22, 2008

by Cris Evatt (Author), Bruce Feld (Author)

ARE YOU MORE OF A GIVER OR MORE OF A TAKER? Do you have an unbalanced relationship with your lover, kids, friends or coworkers?
Oddly, people who give excessively often believe they give far less than they do. Why? Because giving is so easy for them.

Likewise people who give far little believe they give more because giving is such a chore.

Both types are manipulative.

Learn 30 Giver-Taker traits in this provocative book. Spot the two personality types more easily. By reading THE GIVERS AND THE TAKERS, you will find out how to become vastly more assertive and less codependent. You will quit enabling Takers to take advantage of you and confuse you by calling you selfish. This book is clear, quirky, powerful and life-changing.

It is a text to be read and reread, studied and debated, but mostly incorporated into your relationships.

[metalsmith]

Oct 6, 2016 8:37:23 GMT -5 @shotgunner said:

Nope.

Nothing short of a very large meteorite is changing this. Not ice melting, not cow farts, not every human in the world jumping in synchrony, not burning all the oil on the planet.

It's called precession. Google it.

Another long word for you; possibly even familiar:
Excentricity

those that dabble with the stock markets may have come across the theory of Milankovitch Cycles before

[bushmanbilly]

[1dave]

Oct 6, 2016 13:16:29 GMT -5 bushmanbilly said:

We need to use this in the US!