 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My mistake. Ottawa is the marker you see NE of Toronto (or those double dots) and
there
are actually two markers there as I had said, so that is true anyway. Those two close
markers near or at Toronto is a mystery. I have searched this thing out and found
nothing to explain the second one. The other is Mississauga and should be correct.
Only
other marker position that comes close would be Buffalo New York, south of Lake
Ontario.
Bob wrote:
>
> No, you're not seeing things. That's two (yes, 2) close neighbors of yours in
Ottawa.
> About the listing of persons and related info: despite some people willing to share
> their info I can't see it as feasible. Many did not leave email addresses for one
thing.
> I've thought this same thing over several times with the conclusion it is too messy
a
> proposition as is. It would either (1.) require a resubmittal/contact by all or (2.)
> only be partial info for sending out/posting. The prime importance would be the
> acquisition of everyones permission to redistribute. If I had the forethought to do
so I
> would have asked also for the right to hand over all of it to anyone else and I did
not.
> Sending it out to everyone with a supplied email address isn't totally out of the
> question I would think, I just hate the idea of trying that since part of the reason
> some people may have participated to begin with was due to a single person (me)
being
> sole caretaker of their information. I could be completely wrong, but hey like I
say,
> there isn't a reasonable way to find out or unless a partial set were to be done (or
> redone, as the case may be) and I'm not really doing any more than gathering and
> updating. Sorry folks, the main reason I'm putting it this way is due to other
things
> I've heard about people not wanting their personal info spread around, plus the fact
it
> would be another task to start sorting in a way altogether different from the
current
> one.
> The concept of internet technology demographics and the plotting on this particular
map
> is a interesting one. To me only some places make sense and others do not. Not only
> that, but the oddity (irony?) of some clusters of people very close to each other is
> moreso fascinating. We would probably have to see the exact cultural settings to
make a
> judgement. In my particular instance there are 3 locales plotted nearly in the same
> place (including myself) and it is a region where the NASA space program, among
other
> such high-tech things, are occupants also of this area. Yet I do not have any
ability to
> say a similar thing of other places.
>
> Guess what... No. Okay, I'll tell you then. That Macapa, Brazil marker is an error.
Now
> talk about a lonely poor sole, non-existant even!
> Thankyou Chris M. for causing me to look it up. Turns out I had mistakenly switched
the
> latitude and longitude numbers for London, England. *blush* I am so ashamed! I would
> never have realized that if you hadn't brought it up and there was no email address
of
> the person it concerned, so sorry to you too, Londoner. Where ever you are J. W.,
there
> isn't another person besides you in London, yet). Luckily it appears to be shown
already
> marked (not really, just close by).
>
> Chris Maryan wrote:
> >
> > On a related note: Bob, how about appending the list of names with
> > locations for those who don't mind. Or how about just a list of
> > coordinates for those interested in trying a pov map ourselves.
> >
> > And now for something completely different. Any thoughts as to whether
> > this map accurately represents the use of internet technologies?
> >
> > Speaking of which, what's up with the unexpected concentration around
> > Estonia and Finland?
> >
> > And while I'm ranting away... regarding TonyB's post about the isolated
> > POVer, the most isolated seem to be our friends in Panama, Singapore and
> > what I can only guess to be Macapa.
> >
> > I can't remember what my original reason to write this was, so I'll stop
> > now.
> >
> > --
> > Chris Maryan (The dot on the north shore of L. Ontario... is that a
> > double dot or am I just seeing things)
> > mailto:cma### [at] geocities com
> > ***
> > Will work for cash.
> > ***
> > Email me if you are interested in donating
> > to the Chris Maryan needs money fund.
> > We will also accept donations to the Chris
> > needs a Pentium III or SGI workstation
> > fund and the Chris needs a car fund.
>
> --
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Maryan wrote:
>
> Speaking of which, what's up with the unexpected concentration around
> Estonia and Finland?
>
Why unexpected? That's THE CENTRE :)
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I find myself my fellow Estonian POVers peacefully floating in the Baltic Sea,
halfway between Tallinn and Helsinki. I'm not complaining - it's nice and warm.
Just get me out of there before autumn :)
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I can always try (to get you out of those icey winter waters), however it's a hit and
miss problem. If I add or subtract to that Earth image, for the spherical 'image_map',
it tends to throw other places off. I wish I knew what accuracy it was meant to have,
obviously not the choice for cartographers. As I've said, the math of the POV-Ray
coordinates really shouldn't be off, at least by any observable amount I should think.
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> I find myself my fellow Estonian POVers peacefully floating in the Baltic Sea,
> halfway between Tallinn and Helsinki. I'm not complaining - it's nice and warm.
> Just get me out of there before autumn :)
>
> Margus
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:41:54 -0500, Bob <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>I see that you did. Thanks for finding them (the lat/lon).
>
>
No problem. It was quite fun searching around for it actually :)
As for who appears to be just off the west coast of Ireland - I pity
the weather they must have :)
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 01:03:25 -0500, Bob <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:
[snip]
> Anyhow, all else appears to be aligning fairly well,
>but England? It's like a terrible earthquake has shifted it toward the continent. I
>haven't a good fix for this yet, I hate to think the coordinate numbers need a
>subtraction by more than a degree and even worse the prospect of cut & pasting Great
>Britain. Not a thing I like to do, playing god.
If you do have to resort to moving the UK - could you move us somewhat
south? I know the weather's pretty good here at the moment, but we
could do with a warmer average <g>
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No biggie. Besides, I believe there are a few tiny islands around there. So you
needn't bother about it.
Margus
Bob wrote:
>
> I can always try (to get you out of those icey winter waters), however it's a hit
and
> miss problem. If I add or subtract to that Earth image, for the spherical
'image_map',
> it tends to throw other places off. I wish I knew what accuracy it was meant to
have,
> obviously not the choice for cartographers. As I've said, the math of the POV-Ray
> coordinates really shouldn't be off, at least by any observable amount I should
think.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 16:38:22 -0500, Bob <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>I can always try (to get you out of those icey winter waters), however it's a hit and
>miss problem. If I add or subtract to that Earth image, for the spherical
'image_map',
>it tends to throw other places off. I wish I knew what accuracy it was meant to have,
>obviously not the choice for cartographers. As I've said, the math of the POV-Ray
>coordinates really shouldn't be off, at least by any observable amount I should
think.
Have you considered that Earth is actually not a perfect sphere but is
a little squished along the axis of rotation? It's shaped as a geoide
(sp?) which makes perfect sense as this word means "looking like
Earth" :)
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cliff Bowman <who### [at] spamcitycom> wrote in message
news:37766ca4.7134056@news.povray.org...
> On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 01:03:25 -0500, Bob <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Anyhow, all else appears to be aligning fairly well,
> >but England? It's like a terrible earthquake has shifted it toward the
continent. I
> >haven't a good fix for this yet, I hate to think the coordinate numbers
need a
> >subtraction by more than a degree and even worse the prospect of cut &
pasting Great
> >Britain. Not a thing I like to do, playing god.
>
>
> If you do have to resort to moving the UK - could you move us somewhat
> south? I know the weather's pretty good here at the moment, but we
> could do with a warmer average <g>
Yeah, and airbrush out any clouds.
In fact, you could airbrush out Milton Keynes while you're at it :P
/\/\/\//
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Uh, say Mark, I think you are letting on about how you like the
Southern Hemisphere
>here; so much so that you sent in a latitude of 142 degrees and 40
minutes. That would
>have put you back up north to -38 degrees instead of this 42 however ;)
Doh, thanks Barry, erm Bob. (Sorry, but a typo is better than Mark vs
Martin :-))
Maybe this is why I keep getting angles of rotation fouled up...
>I took the liberty of removing the 1 already, so you are set up to be
rendered as should
>be. Much later today (6/26) that is.
Thanks for correcting my abject stupidity.
Have Fun
Martin
--
<Spa### [at] tesseractcomau> is a valid address
If you prefer mnemonic addresses you can use:
<Martin 'at' tesseract.com.au> or <Martin.Crisp 'at' Tourism.tas.gov.au>
My opinions should not be taken as indicative of Tourism Tasmania's
opinions
Bob wrote in message <3774772F.78A9F9FC@aol.com>...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
