 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The death star will be clear of the planet any moment!
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100127.html
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> The death star will be clear of the planet any moment!
I wonder... why didn't the Death Star just destroy the planet that was
in the way first, allowing it to fire on the planet behind?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I wonder... why didn't the Death Star just destroy the planet that was
> in the way first, allowing it to fire on the planet behind?
Maybe it takes more than 20 minutes to recharge after blowing up something
that big?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I wonder... why didn't the Death Star just destroy the planet that was
>> in the way first, allowing it to fire on the planet behind?
>
> Maybe it takes more than 20 minutes to recharge after blowing up
> something that big?
Is the planet going somewhere?
How long does it take to move the entire Death Star, for that matter?
It's depicted moving from system to system, but it never seems to move
very fast. And star systems are a damned long way apart!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > I wonder... why didn't the Death Star just destroy the planet that was
> > in the way first, allowing it to fire on the planet behind?
>
> Maybe it takes more than 20 minutes to recharge after blowing up something
> that big?
Maybe it's simply incapable of destroying gas giants? We only ever see it target
earth-like planets or moons.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> The death star will be clear of the planet any moment!
>
> I wonder... why didn't the Death Star just destroy the planet that was
> in the way first, allowing it to fire on the planet behind?
I guess you could argue that blowing up the planet you're orbiting
around is vaguely akin to sawing the branch on which you sit :-) (yeah I
know, this also raises the problem of how exactly you destroy a planet
so that all the bits don't get together again after the fact)
Though I can't remember if the death star was actually orbiting the
big gas giant...
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> I wonder... why didn't the Death Star just destroy the planet that
>>> was in the way first, allowing it to fire on the planet behind?
>>
>> Maybe it takes more than 20 minutes to recharge after blowing up
>> something that big?
>
> Is the planet going somewhere?
Um, yes? It's orbiting the moon? Why blow up the planet to reveal the moon
that you then take 20 minutes to blow up, if you can just wait 10 minutes
for the moon to come into view on its own?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> How long does it take to move the entire Death Star, for that matter?
> It's depicted moving from system to system, but it never seems to move
> very fast. And star systems are a damned long way apart!
I wonder why the Death Star didn't "land" in the right spot straight away?
Did somebody make a mistake when typing in the address in the GPS or was it just
the fact that the ending would become quite disappointing if they just appeared
next to the planet out of nothing?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
just found the answer myself, should have read up on the movie before replying,
they didn't have the exact address.....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
joost_1972 wrote:
> I wonder why the Death Star didn't "land" in the right spot straight away?
> Did somebody make a mistake when typing in the address in the GPS or was it just
> the fact that the ending would become quite disappointing if they just appeared
> next to the planet out of nothing?
GPS?
As in global positioning system?
Perhaps you mean universal positioning system. :-D
Hmm, UPS. That would explain it...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> GPS?
> As in global positioning system?
> Perhaps you mean universal positioning system. :-D
What's the difference between global and universal?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-1-2010 22:33, joost_1972 wrote:
Do I notice a new guy (I assume) in the group. Welcome.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b60c14d@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> GPS?
>
>> As in global positioning system?
>
>> Perhaps you mean universal positioning system. :-D
>
> What's the difference between global and universal?
I never know if you're serious or not, but:
global means "around the globe", whereas universal means "throughout the
universe"
cu!
--
#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*C/50#end#macro _(b,e,k,l)#local C=0;#while(C<50)
sphere{G(b,e)+3*z.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1;
#end#end _(y-x,y,x,x+y)_(y,-x-y,x+y,y)_(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)_(-y,y,y+z,x+y)
_(0x+y.5+y/2x)_(0x-y.5+y/2x) // ZK http://www.povplace.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2010 0:18, Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4b60c14d@news.povray.org...
>> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> GPS?
>>> As in global positioning system?
>>> Perhaps you mean universal positioning system. :-D
>> What's the difference between global and universal?
>
> I never know if you're serious or not,
yes, that is his astounding sense of humor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote:
> > What's the difference between global and universal?
> I never know if you're serious or not
That's me. Always ambiguous.
It was a rhetoric question.
>, but:
> global means "around the globe", whereas universal means "throughout the
> universe"
At least thesaurus.com lists "global" and "universal" as synonyms.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 28-1-2010 0:18, Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> > "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> > news:4b60c14d@news.povray.org...
> >> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> GPS?
> >>> As in global positioning system?
> >>> Perhaps you mean universal positioning system. :-D
> >> What's the difference between global and universal?
> >
> > I never know if you're serious or not,
> yes, that is his astounding sense of humor.
I didn't understand. Ambiguous posts are a sign of astounding sense of
humor? What does that mean?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:30:22 -0500, Warp wrote:
> It was a rhetoric question.
You mean a "rhetorical" question, I think.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> global means "around the globe", whereas universal means "throughout the
>> universe"
>
> At least thesaurus.com lists "global" and "universal" as synonyms.
in everyday use, they are, but true synonyms don't exist :)
cu!
--
#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*C/50#end#macro _(b,e,k,l)#local C=0;#while(C<50)
sphere{G(b,e)+3*z.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1;
#end#end _(y-x,y,x,x+y)_(y,-x-y,x+y,y)_(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)_(-y,y,y+z,x+y)
_(0x+y.5+y/2x)_(0x-y.5+y/2x) // ZK http://www.povplace.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> but:
>> global means "around the globe", whereas universal means "throughout the
>> universe"
>
> At least thesaurus.com lists "global" and "universal" as synonyms.
In common speech, global and universal are used to simply mean
"everwhere". However, when talking specifically about outer space,
global means "around the globe" - i.e., the planet in question
[typically Earth], while universal means truly *everywhere*.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The death star will be clear of the planet any moment!
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100127.html
>
Interesting psychological response, I did have. First I'm like, what a loser, I
bet he just now discovered there's a moon that looks like the Death Star.
That's soooo 2008. Then when I saw it, I'm like, wow, this is a new photo from
a perspective you don't see (ever/often), and he's got a genuinely witty
obervation about it. WIN!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 27-1-2010 22:33, joost_1972 wrote:
>
> Do I notice a new guy (I assume) in the group. Welcome.
Thank You :)
Fiddeling with povray for a while, but just noticed the off-topic area..
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
