 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Warren wrote:
> Scientific America an 'Art' magazine.
^
Hehe! Have you read the Feb. Anti Gravity column or was it just a typo?
Steve Mirsky's column is the first one I read, and he seldom fails to
make me laugh!
sig.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sigmund Kyrre Aas wrote:
> Hehe! Have you read the Feb. Anti Gravity column or was it just a typo?
Was that the one about shattering baseball bats in college games?
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricy net>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Scientific America
<flame bait> An oxymoron? </flame bait>
Just a joke, settle down...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote:
>
> >The counterperson (could I *be*
> > more PC) said that this issue
> > was selling "like hotcakes."
>
> My only 3D magazine (Computer Graphics World) stopped coming to the store a
> few months ago. Apparently, nobody in this friggin' country is into 3D, so
> there is no demand for the magazine. The last one was the November 1999
> issue. :(
I get "Computer Graphics", the SIGGRAPH journal.
-Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote in message <389ae922@news.povray.org>...
>Apparently, nobody in this friggin' country is into 3D
You are wrong Oh PovBreath (bad Johnny Carson).
I know of at least one person in your 'friggin'' country
that is into 3D.
That would be you.
Nonetheless,
point taken.
I will be the first to start a "Let's get TonyB some
friggin' 3D mags" group."
Probably this will not get to far but at least you
will know that someone cares.
Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm half way thru this article.
I remember SA as being a
little better written in the past
than now.
Maybe it is just me.
Also it seems 'flashier' in general,
but so is all media these days.
Still interesting and I personally
was surprised with it's emphasis
on human skin.
I did not really think of this as an
issue, yet
Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabian Brau <fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
news:389A9BFA.7D650077@umh.ac.be...
>
> But since you like precision, here is
> ...
> speed of light 299792458 m/s
Being picky - through what medium? :-)
Alf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alf Peake wrote in message <389c39c7@news.povray.org>...
>
>Fabian Brau <fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
news:389A9BFA.7D650077@umh.ac.be...
>>
>> But since you like precision, here is
>> ...
>> speed of light 299792458 m/s
>
>Being picky - through what medium? :-)
Vacuum, of course.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>I will be the first to start a "Let's get TonyB some
>friggin' 3D mags" group."
>
>Probably this will not get to far but at least you
>will know that someone cares.
Aw, thanks. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
> > Scientific America
>
> <flame bait> An oxymoron? </flame bait>
>
> Just a joke, settle down...
I am settled but about 1991 it was ready to go
under. It then started to add a human interest angle
and has never been the same since. IOW: I canceled and
have rarely bothered with its "popular science" angle
since then.
Also unless bait is a modifier as to the type of
flame that should be one word.
--
The question is not, "Who will let me do it?"
The question is, "Who will stop me?"
Offering an apology is easier than getting permission.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
