 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/08/2018 07:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 3-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
>> On 03/08/2018 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a case for the Brexit team I guess.
>>
>> Might as well. They are not doing much at the moment.
>>
>
> Pretty quiet on that front, ain't they? Loitering on the beach, no
> doubt. ;-)
>
Hiding under the table?
>>
>>
>>> Does the UK want to continue to use the continental written version,
>>> or switch to the US version? A new challenge for Mrs May.
>>>
>>
>> US version. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons. :-)
>
> I should have expected that answer!
>
Indeed. :-)
>>
>>> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
>>>
>>
>> Wonderful country, great Queen. They all love me over there. ;-)
>>
>>
>
> LOL! (oh dear saints in heaven... I almost pissed my pants...)
>
:-D
I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
But we should not mock the afflicted.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/2018 03:20 AM, Stephen wrote:
> I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
likewise
> But we should not mock the afflicted.
why not ... it's become a sport in my household
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/2018 07:09 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
Pricks Often Tell Unsubstantiated Stories?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2018-08-04 03:20 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
> On 04/08/2018 07:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 3-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2018 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>>>> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wonderful country, great Queen. They all love me over there. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> LOL! (oh dear saints in heaven... I almost pissed my pants...)
>>
>
> :-D
> I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
So can I. Thanks for that auditory imagery, Stephen. :-P
> But we should not mock the afflicted.
When the affliction is comorbid with narcissism, assholitis, and the
Dunning-Kruger affect, I will mock. Especially when this megalomaniac
who hates dark-skinned people who don't pay lip service to Jesus[1] and
denies that I have a constitutional right to citizenship is making
policy that affects me.
________________
[1] I deliberately phrased it that way, because you know damn well that
the Afflicted One is only pretending to love Jesus.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/08/2018 12:37, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 08/04/2018 03:20 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
>
> likewise
>
A boon to comedians. :)
>> But we should not mock the afflicted.
>
> why not ... it's become a sport in my household
>
I am quoting the late Frankie Howard. "Mock not the afflicted." was one
of his catchphrases.
And he was certainly "afflicted". ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/08/2018 17:35, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2018-08-04 03:20 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
>> On 04/08/2018 07:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 3-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 03/08/2018 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>>>> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wonderful country, great Queen. They all love me over there. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL! (oh dear saints in heaven... I almost pissed my pants...)
>>>
>>
>> :-D
>> I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
>
>
Not a problem, cuz. :)
Now, if you want an earworm. ;)
Try this from the 80's. Sophia George
https://youtu.be/nDKb4O-l02U?t=22
>> But we should not mock the afflicted.
>
> When the affliction is comorbid with narcissism, assholitis, and the
> Dunning-Kruger affect,
Ooo! it has a name. :)
> I will mock.
Afflicted might be referring to the people who are afflicted by him,
yes, yes?
It is too easy really. But see my reply to Jim.
> Especially when this megalomaniac
> who hates dark-skinned people who don't pay lip service to Jesus[1] and
> denies that I have a constitutional right to citizenship is making
> policy that affects me.
>
Well, he is not making it a secret. At least you can say that of him. :)
> ________________
> [1] I deliberately phrased it that way, because you know damn well that
> the Afflicted One is only pretending to love Jesus.
>
Not Jesus the Mexican welder I met in NM? And yes his wife's name was
Mary and he had a sunscreen on his car that said; "Mary and Jesus".
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscape net> wrote:
>
> Miles, baby. Miles.
LOL! Brilliant.
I always *knew* there was a difference between meters and...uh...yards, but I
could never quite put my finger on it...
Gonna save that image and show it to my mathematically-challenged friends:
PROOF that the U.S. system of measurement is BIGGER and BETTER! I'm sure POTUS
would think so. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Tradeoffs, tradeoffs, tradeoffs.
>...
> I found the black borders on the smooth triangles unexpectedly
> disturbing. They do show up on my height field hills under some
> circumstances, but are quite tolerable. But seeing them cap my trees
> sent me straight to double_illuminate. Disappointingly, double
> illumination had its own peculiarities near the shadow lines. And when
> I added surface normals to the trees, it got really weird.
About your low-res smooth_triangle trees: I still think that at least the
edge-normal artifacts can be made to look a bit better.
I've been playing around with a low-res height_field, testing double_illuminate
vs. an inside_texture (a RED color in my example), and I think the latter can be
a more effective solution as a tradeoff. From the tests, it's clear that the
object's edge normals are not picking up any of the SKY color (YELLOW), but
rather, the black unlit 'inside' of the closed mesh. (The docs clearly explain
this 'reversed-normal' situation, of course.) But using the recommended
double_illuminate causes strange visual artifacts to appear on an 'applied'
normal{...}.
About the image:
There are to lights in the scene (one of very low intensity from the right, just
to help show some of the bumps normals on that side of the HF, rather than
completely featureless triangle faces that are in shadow.) That by itself helps
with the other problems a little bit.
Image 1 contains the edge artifacts, although they're difficult to see (your
trees are a better test case.)
Image 2-- using double_illuminate-- shows the changed appearance of the bumps
normal. (See the exact center of the image.)
Image 3 shows the true edge artifacts in all their glory ;-) But it also shows
that, by using an *appropriate* color for the inside_texture, it might be
possible to 'hide the edge artifacts in plain sight' so to speak. For example,
if the sky behind the tree edges is a light blue color, and the trees are olive
green, the inside_texture's pigment could be a 'mottled blend' between the two.
A quick and dirty example:
pigment{
bumps
scale <...to be determined...>
color_map{
[0 <...sky blue...>]
[1 <... tree green...>]
}
--- some warp{turbulence...}---
}
finish{ambient 0 emission .5 diffuse 0}
The basic idea is to give a kind of random blue/green color to the edges of the
trees, in a broken-up way, to help them visually blend in better with the sky
and with their neighbors.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'low_rez_hf_tests.jpg' (288 KB)
Preview of image 'low_rez_hf_tests.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> But using the recommended
> double_illuminate causes strange visual artifacts to appear on an 'applied'
> normal{...}.
>
"Artifacts" is the wrong word, I admit; the effect is probably a natural result
of 'double-illuminating' the applied normal-- which is not the general way that
normals are expected to interact with a *single* light-source direction. A
better way to describe it would be: a more 'complex' interaction.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2018 19:52, Stephen wrote:
> On 04/08/2018 17:35, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> On 2018-08-04 03:20 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2018 07:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 3-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On 03/08/2018 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wonderful country, great Queen. They all love me over there. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL! (oh dear saints in heaven... I almost pissed my pants...)
>>>>
>>>
>>> :-D
>>> I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
>>
>>
>
> Not a problem, cuz. :)
>
> Now, if you want an earworm. ;)
>
> Try this from the 80's. Sophia George
> https://youtu.be/nDKb4O-l02U?t=22
>
>
>
>>> But we should not mock the afflicted.
>>
>> When the affliction is comorbid with narcissism, assholitis, and the
>> Dunning-Kruger affect,
>
> Ooo! it has a name. :)
>
>> I will mock.
>
> Afflicted might be referring to the people who are afflicted by him,
> yes, yes?
>
> It is too easy really. But see my reply to Jim.
>
>
>
>> Especially when this megalomaniac who hates dark-skinned people who
>> don't pay lip service to Jesus[1] and denies that I have a
>> constitutional right to citizenship is making policy that affects me.
>>
>
> Well, he is not making it a secret. At least you can say that of him. :)
>
>> ________________
>> [1] I deliberately phrased it that way, because you know damn well
>> that the Afflicted One is only pretending to love Jesus.
>>
I am afraid he sincerely(?) believes that. However, his guru was/is a
creepy guy in my view...
>
> Not Jesus the Mexican welder I met in NM? And yes his wife's name was
> Mary and he had a sunscreen on his car that said; "Mary and Jesus".
>
Till the end of my days, I shall be amazed by the world I live in.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
