|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-4-2016 2:31, Stephen wrote:
>>
> TO WOUND THE AUTUMNAL city.
> So howled out for the world to give him a name.
> The in-dark answered with wind.
> All you know I know: careening astronauts and bank clerks glancing at
> the clock before lunch; actresses cowling at light-ringed mirrors and
> freight elevator operators grinding a thumbful of grease on a steel
> handle; student riots; know that dark women in bodegas shook their heads
> last week because in six months prices have risen outlandishly; how
> coffee tastes after you’ve held it in your mouth, cold, a whole minute.
>
> Dhalgren
>
> Samuel Delany
>
Yes. Somehow, this has to be mentioned once in a while. Again and again.
Until they misunderstand.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-4-2016 1:09, Stephen wrote:
> On 4/10/2016 3:37 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 10.04.2016 um 15:00 schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 4/10/2016 1:37 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
>>>> The coordinate system is a static "thing" It doesn't "do" anything.
>>>> Look_at just determines what direction the camera is pointing when
>>>> it's at a
>>>> given location ("vector").
>>>
>>> Just one thing to mention. There are two coordinate systems*, Y up and Z
>>> up. Depends if you are a mathematician or an engineer. Moray used Z up.
>>> There is also left hand and right hand versions too.
>>> One of the reasons I use a modeller I cannot visualise scenes well
>>> enough to be a true Pover.
>>>
>>> * Not counting all the fancy ones like Polar, Plücker, cylindrical etc.
>>
>> In other words, you refer to cartesian coordinates only.
>>
>> Well, actually there are only _two_ fundamentally different
>> 3-dimensional cartesian coordinate systems: A right-handed one and a
>> left-handed, and _infinitely_ many different orientations of those two
>> coordinate systems, each of which are equally valid from a mathematical
>> point of view.
>>
>> So accomodating only for the handedness and a choice of whether Y or Z
>> is up doesn't quite cut it.
>>
>
> Well it confused me going from Moray's Y up to PovRay's Z up coordinate
> system. It is easy to make a mistake. It was also the source of many a
> flame war, years ago.
> A 2D X-Y plane is looked down on like a piece of paper by mathematicians
> and Z is up/height. Whilst Engineers looked into an oscilloscope and Z
> is depth. Or the other way around. Lutz of Moray fame wouldn't hear talk
> about it.
> It is a simple transformation to convert and I know for a fact Thomas
> has memorised it.
It's a mantra.
>
> So what doesn't cut what?
> I don't understand.
>
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/11/2016 7:59 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> Yes. Somehow, this has to be mentioned once in a while. Again and again.
> Until they misunderstand.
That sounds like a quote. Is it?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-4-2016 12:57, Stephen wrote:
> On 4/11/2016 7:59 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> Yes. Somehow, this has to be mentioned once in a while. Again and again.
>> Until they misunderstand.
>
>
> That sounds like a quote. Is it?
>
I wanted it to look like a quote ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Yes. Somehow, this has to be mentioned once in a while. Again and again.
> Until they misunderstand.
>
> --
> Thomas
So then with respect to the coordinate system:
One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in
space, you can't go out into space, you know, without, like, you know, uh, with
fractions - what are you going to land on - one-quarter, three-eighths? What are
you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's dialectic
physics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/11/2016 12:13 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 11-4-2016 12:57, Stephen wrote:
>> On 4/11/2016 7:59 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes. Somehow, this has to be mentioned once in a while. Again and again.
>>> Until they misunderstand.
>>
>>
>> That sounds like a quote. Is it?
>>
>
> I wanted it to look like a quote ;-)
>
I just stole the first few lines from a book that starts where it
finishes off.
If you have not read Dhalgren. It is experimental, strangely structured
and unearthly. Full of sex and drugs and street biker/hippy gangs in a
post apocalyptic city. A strange book, the underbelly of science fiction
but artistic too.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-4-2016 13:34, Stephen wrote:
> I just stole the first few lines from a book that starts where it
> finishes off.
> If you have not read Dhalgren. It is experimental, strangely structured
> and unearthly. Full of sex and drugs and street biker/hippy gangs in a
> post apocalyptic city. A strange book, the underbelly of science fiction
> but artistic too.
>
Oh, I know Dhalgren and it is one of my favourites.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-4-2016 13:12, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>> Yes. Somehow, this has to be mentioned once in a while. Again and again.
>> Until they misunderstand.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> So then with respect to the coordinate system:
> One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in
> space, you can't go out into space, you know, without, like, you know, uh, with
> fractions - what are you going to land on - one-quarter, three-eighths? What are
> you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's dialectic
> physics.
>
Well, my pseudo quote was about Stephen's Dhalgren quote but it is
possible to use it for the coordinate system too :-) So, yes.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/11/2016 12:41 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 11-4-2016 13:34, Stephen wrote:
>> I just stole the first few lines from a book that starts where it
>> finishes off.
>> If you have not read Dhalgren. It is experimental, strangely structured
>> and unearthly. Full of sex and drugs and street biker/hippy gangs in a
>> post apocalyptic city. A strange book, the underbelly of science fiction
>> but artistic too.
>>
>
> Oh, I know Dhalgren and it is one of my favourites.
>
:-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/11/2016 12:44 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 11-4-2016 13:12, Bald Eagle wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. Somehow, this has to be mentioned once in a while. Again and again.
>>> Until they misunderstand.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thomas
>>
>> So then with respect to the coordinate system:
>> One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't
>> travel in
>> space, you can't go out into space, you know, without, like, you know,
>> uh, with
>> fractions - what are you going to land on - one-quarter,
>> three-eighths? What are
>> you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's
>> dialectic
>> physics.
>>
>
> Well, my pseudo quote was about Stephen's Dhalgren quote but it is
> possible to use it for the coordinate system too :-) So, yes.
>
>
Yes we have gone a bit off topic.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|