 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Also surprising, most of the votes are counted in single figures. I
> would have expected them to run into tens of thousands, but apparently
> not. I'm not sure whether this means each one gets approximately 50% up
> and 50% down votes, or there are only about 10 people voting worldwide...
>
It's a pretty screen saver, but how many people are going to sit and
vote on each one that goes by? Maybe they vote on just the one that was
displayed before grabbing the mouse and going back to checking email.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"KalleK" wrote:
> Caused by this thread I downloaded electric sheep.
I did too, but I don't miss stats. Instead, I'm rather disappointed that the
screensaver is not continuous at all times as I had expected, but often
jumps from one loop to another without a proper morph between. It's totally
ruining the fluid experience.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> It's a pretty screen saver, but how many people are going to sit and
> vote on each one that goes by? Maybe they vote on just the one that was
> displayed before grabbing the mouse and going back to checking email.
Mmm, apparently I'm weird... heh.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Caused by this thread I downloaded electric sheep.
>
> I did too, but I don't miss stats. Instead, I'm rather disappointed that the
> screensaver is not continuous at all times as I had expected, but often
> jumps from one loop to another without a proper morph between. It's totally
> ruining the fluid experience.
Depends on how many of the morph sequences it's downloaded so far, but
yeah, that is kind of annoying.
(The problem I'm having here is that it keeps playing the same sequence
endlessly because those are the only ones with morphs available. I have
MPEG files on my harddrive that it never plays because there's no morph
to it...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> While the screensaver is running fullscreen, press "S" to toggle stats
> on/off.
>
hmm. didn't work for me, but thanks anyway. I decided to uninstall this
cpueater (and hddeater with standard cachesettings).
kalle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Do andriods dream of electric sheep?
>
> Does anybody reading this use Electric Sheep? Is it any good?
>
> I had a go with it last night. I got it to display one looping
> animation, but that's all I could get it to do. Hmm.
>
So, it prerenders a bunch of stills, and then creates MPGs transitioning
between them?
No, thanks. Aside from the fact that I set my monitor to turn itself
off when I'm not using it, I recommend that people use Folding @Home to
waste their spare CPU cycles :)
Speaking of which, there's a POV-Ray team here:
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=34383
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> So, it prerenders a bunch of stills, and then creates MPGs transitioning
> between them?
Pretty much, yes.
> No, thanks. Aside from the fact that I set my monitor to turn itself
> off when I'm not using it, I recommend that people use Folding @Home to
> waste their spare CPU cycles :)
I'd actually prefer to run it as a stand-alone application rather than a
screen saver, but hey.
I guess I'm the sort of low-intelligence person who is easier fascinated
by simple visual tricks like this. I also enjoy watching fire, and I
used to sit and watch the washing machine. Sometimes I sit and watch
rain, or river turbulence... I guess I'm just stupid.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:57:54 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>I guess I'm the sort of low-intelligence person who is easier fascinated
>by simple visual tricks like this. I also enjoy watching fire, and I
>used to sit and watch the washing machine. Sometimes I sit and watch
>rain, or river turbulence... I guess I'm just stupid.
When I worked offshore a lot of us indulged in wave counting. And in the early
days before the gas was exported or re-injected it was burned off. Hundreds of
cubic meters of gas per minute going up the flare. You could become mesmerised
by it at night.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:57:54 +0000 schrieb Invisible:
> by simple visual tricks like this. I also enjoy watching fire, and I
> used to sit and watch the washing machine. Sometimes I sit and watch
> rain, or river turbulence... I guess I'm just stupid.
Oh no, not at all! Fire is one of the most fascinating things to watch,
you can spend all the time closely watching and you'll never notice the
animation looping (just kidding!). The same with rivers etc... I also
enjoy watching the waves at the shore.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> by simple visual tricks like this. I also enjoy watching fire, and I
>> used to sit and watch the washing machine. Sometimes I sit and watch
>> rain, or river turbulence... I guess I'm just stupid.
>
> Oh no, not at all! Fire is one of the most fascinating things to watch,
> you can spend all the time closely watching and you'll never notice the
> animation looping (just kidding!).
Mmm, I guess it counts as a kind of complex reaction-diffusion system...
> The same with rivers etc... I also enjoy watching the waves at the shore.
Not so much waves, but where water runs across sand, it rapidly erodes
complex "river systems" into the perfect surface. I find this fascinating.
In fact, it seems I've developed a family reputation. Take me to a sand
beach, and likely the first thing I do is to dig a hole in the sand.
People wonder why I just dig a hole and then look at it.
If you dig deep enough, you find water. And if you keep removing sand
from the middle of the hole, the turbulence of the water undercuts the
sides. And eventually they cave in. Theoretically, if you keep digging
in this manner, you could make a very wide, shallow hole. But usually by
this point the tidy comes in, and you watch the fluid dynamics as the
waves wash over the edge of the hole and fill it on. And...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
