I was just re-reading the andromeda strain, in a ballantine paperback, and
found that an interesting part of the book had been changed!
In the beginning of the original book, and IIRC the movie, manchek dials the
binary of 222, represented MSB first as 1-101-1110
As a teenager, I tried that number from a military base, and I did get
someone who answered "Military Emergency". At that point, I hung up the
phone and rapidly made myself elsewhere. This would have been around
1972-1976, in hawaii
Now in the new book, a 1993 edition, the number is presented LSB first, and
is the binary of 87.
The "in case of fire" sign has been changed to read "In case of fire, notify
division 87, Emergencies only"
Creepy.
Why would they go to the effort to change something like that, unless there
was a reason?
> I was just re-reading the andromeda strain, in a ballantine paperback, and
> found that an interesting part of the book had been changed!
>
> In the beginning of the original book, and IIRC the movie, manchek dials the
> binary of 222, represented MSB first as 1-101-1110
> As a teenager, I tried that number from a military base, and I did get
> someone who answered "Military Emergency". At that point, I hung up the
> phone and rapidly made myself elsewhere. This would have been around
> 1972-1976, in hawaii
>
> Now in the new book, a 1993 edition, the number is presented LSB first, and
> is the binary of 87.
> The "in case of fire" sign has been changed to read "In case of fire, notify
> division 87, Emergencies only"
>
> Creepy.
> Why would they go to the effort to change something like that, unless there
> was a reason?
>
>
> Why would they go to the effort to change something like
> that, unless there was a reason?
You must be an american, in the USA-citizen sense? On this side of the
pond we (OK, maybe that's only me) say "don't attribute to anything more
complicated what can be attributed to simple human
error/lazyness/greed/etc". Sort of Occam meets Murphy.
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
>
> You must be an american, in the USA-citizen sense? On this side of the
> pond we (OK, maybe that's only me) say "don't attribute to anything more
> complicated what can be attributed to simple human
> error/lazyness/greed/etc". Sort of Occam meets Murphy.
Guilty as charged, and a navy brat at that.
But, why would they change it?
I've looked it up through google, and others have documented the division
222 version, so I'm not imagining that. It may be the movie I got it from,
it was a lot of years ago.
On 7/16/06, Jack Smith <spam_OUTJack.SmithTakeThisOuTcox.net> wrote:
>
> If you give me your mailing address, I'll send you a copy of the page
> from the 1st edition (1969) that says Division 87.
I'm not disbelieving you, but I know that in some version, it was 222.
I'm just wondering why anyone would change that, since as a work of fiction,
all it needs to do is LOOK believable.
>> But, why would they change it?
>> I've looked it up through google, and others have documented the
>> division 222 version, so I'm not imagining that. It may be the
>> movie I got it from, it was a lot of years ago.
> If you give me your mailing address, I'll send you a copy of
> the page from the 1st edition (1969) that says Division 87.
In my papeback copy, Third Dell Printing -- July 1970, it was
Division 222. As described, it's a telephone number encoded in
binary. 222 translates to 1-101-1110 (page 31-32 of paperback).
That's not a normal telephone number.
Division 87, if translated the same way, would be 101-0111. A
more reasonable telephone number. Maybe people were dialing it.
Or maybe it was _too_ close to reality and was a slip by one of
Chrichton's sources. We'll probably never know.
> [ Andromeda Strain]
>
>
>>> But, why would they change it?
>>> I've looked it up through google, and others have documented the
>>> division 222 version, so I'm not imagining that. It may be the
>>> movie I got it from, it was a lot of years ago.
>>>
>
>
>> If you give me your mailing address, I'll send you a copy of
>> the page from the 1st edition (1969) that says Division 87.
>>
>
> In my papeback copy, Third Dell Printing -- July 1970, it was
> Division 222. As described, it's a telephone number encoded in
> binary. 222 translates to 1-101-1110 (page 31-32 of paperback).
> That's not a normal telephone number.
>
> Division 87, if translated the same way, would be 101-0111. A
> more reasonable telephone number. Maybe people were dialing it.
> Or maybe it was _too_ close to reality and was a slip by one of
> Chrichton's sources. We'll probably never know.
>
> Lee Jones
>
>
It might be a legit AUTOVON telephone number, circa 1970. I know that
system had some unusual telephone numbers in addition to the normal
xxx-xxxx series.
>
>
> It might be a legit AUTOVON telephone number, circa 1970. I know that
> system had some unusual telephone numbers in addition to the normal
> xxx-xxxx series.
> >
> > You must be an american, in the USA-citizen sense? On this side of the
> > pond we (OK, maybe that's only me) say "don't attribute to anything more
> > complicated what can be attributed to simple human
> > error/lazyness/greed/etc". Sort of Occam meets Murphy.
>
>
> Guilty as charged, and a navy brat at that.
>
> But, why would they change it?
> I've looked it up through google, and others have documented the division
> 222 version, so I'm not imagining that. It may be the movie I got it from,
> it was a lot of years ago.
As a matter of interest, 222 is the "Crash Call" number on internal phones in UK hospitals. Coincidence? :-)
>> You must be an american, in the USA-citizen sense? On this side of the
>> pond we (OK, maybe that's only me) say "don't attribute to anything more
>> complicated what can be attributed to simple human
>> error/lazyness/greed/etc". Sort of Occam meets Murphy.
>
> Guilty as charged, and a navy brat at that.
>
> But, why would they change it?
> I've looked it up through google, and others have documented the division
> 222 version, so I'm not imagining that. It may be the movie I got it from,
> it was a lot of years ago.
Given the number of bozos who actually dial numbers which appear in
novels and scifi stories, I would expect the ITU to issue a set of
numbers that are guaranteed NOT to work, for worldwide use ...
> Given the number of bozos who actually dial numbers which appear in
> novels and scifi stories, I would expect the ITU to issue a set of
> numbers that are guaranteed NOT to work, for worldwide use ...
>
> Peter
In North America, NANPA declared the "555" NXX for this purpose
(kinda)... see the specs.
Other than 555-1212 which is directory assistance, very few 555 numbers
"go anywhere".
But it's not (and never will be) an ITU issue, it's up to the telco
operators in each country to set their own numbering standards.
>Given the number of bozos who actually dial numbers which appear in
>novels and scifi stories, I would expect the ITU to issue a set of
>numbers that are guaranteed NOT to work, for worldwide use ...
I always thought that was what happens to 555 .... numbers that are quoted
in US TV and films.
On 7/18/06, Alan B. Pearce <.....A.B.PearceKILLspam@spam@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> I always thought that was what happens to 555 .... numbers that are quoted
> in US TV and films.
> Peter wrote:
>
>> Given the number of bozos who actually dial numbers which appear in novels
>> and scifi stories, I would expect the ITU to issue a set of numbers that
>> are guaranteed NOT to work, for worldwide use ...
>>
>> Peter
>
> In North America, NANPA declared the "555" NXX for this purpose (kinda)...
> see the specs.
>
> Other than 555-1212 which is directory assistance, very few 555 numbers "go
> anywhere".
>
> But it's not (and never will be) an ITU issue, it's up to the telco operators
> in each country to set their own numbering standards.
The ITU is about the only body that might, under certain circumstances,
tell telcos all over the world that it might be good if a certain set
of numbers would not be allocated because they are going to be used in
novels, scifi zines, movies and radio shows which will reach 200 million
people a year, and 0.1% of those are SURE to call those numbers at some
time or another.
>> Given the number of bozos who actually dial numbers which appear in
>> novels and scifi stories, I would expect the ITU to issue a set of
>> numbers that are guaranteed NOT to work, for worldwide use ...
>
> I always thought that was what happens to 555 .... numbers that are quoted
> in US TV and films.
I think I saw 555 numbers somewhere. Something commercial.
The 555 prefix seems to be reserved for non customer phone services.
electronics.howstuffworks.com/question659.htm
There are 680 usable area codes in the United States, of which 215
are currently in use. Each area code has 7,920,000 telephone numbers
(out of a possible 10,000,000) available within it. Some numbers,
such as those that would start with 0,1 or 911, are unavailable
for use. Others, like 555, which is used as a prefix for fake phone
numbers in movies and on TV, are reserved for special use.
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>
>
>>>Given the number of bozos who actually dial numbers which appear in
>>>novels and scifi stories, I would expect the ITU to issue a set of
>>>numbers that are guaranteed NOT to work, for worldwide use ...
>>
>>I always thought that was what happens to 555 .... numbers that are quoted
>>in US TV and films.
>
>
> I think I saw 555 numbers somewhere. Something commercial.
>
> Peter
Peter wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>
>>> Given the number of bozos who actually dial numbers which appear in
>>> novels and scifi stories, I would expect the ITU to issue a set of
>>> numbers that are guaranteed NOT to work, for worldwide use ...
>> I always thought that was what happens to 555 .... numbers that are quoted
>> in US TV and films.
>
> I think I saw 555 numbers somewhere. Something commercial.
You might be thinking of the aborted attempt by AT&T in the 90's to
create "follow-me" numbers with NPA-500-XXXX.
On Jul 16, 2006, at 4:05 PM, David VanHorn wrote:
>
> I'm not disbelieving you, but I know that in some version, it was
> 222. I'm just wondering why anyone would change that, since as
> a work of fiction, all it needs to do is LOOK believable.
>
I remember 222, but in two early versions of the book I read, there
was DIFFERENT text for how to do the binary conversion, at least
one of which was quite wrong (perhaps just the LSB-first issue
mentioned, but it definitely didn't match the binary conversion
we were doing in school.)
From most american phones, dialing any combination of 1s and 0s
gets you the operator. Especially in the timeframe the book was
first published. The 1's are essentially ignored...
>
> I remember 222, but in two early versions of the book I read, there
> was DIFFERENT text for how to do the binary conversion, at least
> one of which was quite wrong (perhaps just the LSB-first issue
> mentioned, but it definitely didn't match the binary conversion
> we were doing in school.)
I just got the Dell version, 0199 no bar code (!) 440-001990-125 on the
spine, which calls it out as 222, and does the conversion to binary as MSB
left.
ost american phones, dialing any combination of 1s and 0s
gets you the operator. Especially in the timeframe the book was
first published. The 1's are essentially ignored...
cox.net> wrote:
