Sorry for the OT but this may be of interest to some:

http://personal.southern.edu/~dascott/tutorial01/nasa-earth.htm

http://personal.southern.edu/~dascott/tutorial02/cloudcomp.htm

The specular color and other things make it obvious which is real
and which is rendered. But irregardless it's interesting to see some
of the features available in Lightwave. I don't know if povray or some
incarnation of povray has all those features (I know it has some or
most). Would be nice though.

The cloud tutorial is of particular interest if you have a cloud texture
with missing data at the poles.

Unfortunately some links are broken.

Regards,

Mike

Post a reply to this message

"irregardless" is bad English. It is a double negative.

Michael Smith <s64### [at] worldnetattnet> wrote in message
news:3c92ce4a@news.povray.org...
> Sorry for the OT but this may be of interest to some:
>
> http://personal.southern.edu/~dascott/tutorial01/nasa-earth.htm
>
> http://personal.southern.edu/~dascott/tutorial02/cloudcomp.htm
>
> The specular color and other things make it obvious which is real
> and which is rendered. But irregardless it's interesting to see some
> of the features available in Lightwave. I don't know if povray or some
> incarnation of povray has all those features (I know it has some or
> most). Would be nice though.
>
> The cloud tutorial is of particular interest if you have a cloud texture
> with missing data at the poles.
>
> Unfortunately some links are broken.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
news:3c93cf74@news.povray.org...
> "irregardless" is bad English. It is a double negative.

Improper use of the phrase "double negative" during a grammar flame, two
points off.
Since "irregardless" means regardless in the same way that inflammable means
flammable, it is not a double negative unless used in a sentence with a
negative.

From www.m-w.com

One entry found for double negative.


Main Entry: double negative
Function: noun
Date: 1827
: a now nonstandard syntactic construction containing two negatives and
having a negative meaning <"I didn't hear nothing" is a double negative>


One entry found for irregardless.




Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th
century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of
usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark
about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It
is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to
time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is
still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Post a reply to this message

> [...]

> Use regardless instead.

Hm. Just use "irregardless" regardless instead of what?
Or use the "instead", which does it's own way by behaving
pretty regardless?

Well, okay, that's not very proper english I'm fabricating
here. but it still sounds funny.

"Use regardless instead."

Heh.

;-)

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html

Post a reply to this message

Harold Baize wrote in message <3c93cf74@news.povray.org>...

>"irregardless" is bad English. It is a double negative.

How's this Harold - I'll use "regardless" from now on if you'll go easy on
the next person unfortunate enough to make a grammatical faux pas in
your presence?

Mike

Post a reply to this message

Well I did not intend to flame, just point out a minor
grammatical issue. It is double negative because both
the prefix (ir) and suffix (less) negate the root word--
regard.
Also, I didn't disparage or flame, just pointed out
the error. Didn't pass judgment.Well, ok I did
say it was "bad" English. Maybe I should have
just said the word is a double negative, better
yet not said anything. Then again people might
never notice that there is a problem with the word.
Regardless, I'm sorry of Michael felt flamed ;-)

HB

Bill DeWitt <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c93dbc5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
> news:3c93cf74@news.povray.org...
> > "irregardless" is bad English. It is a double negative.
>
> Improper use of the phrase "double negative" during a grammar flame, two
> points off.
> Since "irregardless" means regardless in the same way that inflammable
means
> flammable, it is not a double negative unless used in a sentence with a
> negative.
>
> From www.m-w.com
>
> One entry found for double negative.
>
>
> Main Entry: double negative
> Function: noun
> Date: 1827
> : a now nonstandard syntactic construction containing two negatives and
> having a negative meaning <"I didn't hear nothing" is a double negative>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
news:3c93cf74@news.povray.org...
> "irregardless" is bad English. It is a double negative.

So what's "irrigate"?

Post a reply to this message

A watering system?

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3c95ff8a$1@news.povray.org...
> "Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
> news:3c93cf74@news.povray.org...
> > "irregardless" is bad English. It is a double negative.
>
> So what's "irrigate"?
>
>

Post a reply to this message