|
Holy Cr*p, The broadband went out today for about an hour, I almost headed upto Bristol (my flat) where I know it was working just so I could get E-mail, I am waiting for the results of an interview so I can get out of the pub! I was under the impression that it was the line here it seems to be made of spider silk! then an hour later (I had been press ganged by my Mum to put stuff in a wardrobe shelf as it can' t be reached by her) It was working again!
modified 2-Feb-16 17:29pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looking forward to Shamrock Shake season. Yummmm!
|
|
|
|
|
Do Apple executives have in cider information?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
No but they get to the core.
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and they're high in spirits!
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
If a coffee bean is between the Earth and the Sun, is it a Java Eclipse? -- Sascha Lefèvre
/xml>
|
|
|
|
|
In the end, it's all about juice, and how big your apples are.
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, they're very seedy.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
All Apple's products are fruitless, so I guess no?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what this thought stem's from but it doesn't appeel to me.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
You're all stalk, old fruit!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
They'll just Cook something up
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, he is the decider.
|
|
|
|
|
Of cores
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
How far apart would two earth-based telescopes have to be in order for their (CCD video) images of the moon to be combinable into a stereoscopic image?
(specifically would 320km be enough?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even less if you're not aiming at human viewers.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, give or take two inches. Good call.
|
|
|
|
|
Given that the moon is 15,133,979,520 inches away there won't be much of a difference between the two images.
As that is 384,000 km, then even a separation of 300km doesn't look like it will make much difference - 3000 may be more the required distance so this moon shot is cancelled.
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote: there won't be much of a difference between the two images.
Not my concern.
|
|
|
|
|
According to this stereoscopic guide, you would need to place the cameras 12,813km apart (if I'm reading correctly).
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
|
|
|
|
|
Going by the 1/30 rule - you are correct. All that is required is to have two cameras on opposite sides of the Earth. The problem is that for both cameras - the Moon will be on the horizon, which will distort the images.
Using two satellites in the same orbit but 180 degrees apart would solve the horizon problem.
Perhaps we can interest Elon Musk in the project?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Foothill wrote: if I'm reading correctly
You're not! The 1/30 rule gives you the distance of the nearest object that you can successfully photograph stereoscopically given the separation of the cameras. It's not intended to work in reverse to calculate the separation of the cameras given the distance of the object you're photographing. And really it should only take a second's thought to realise why that is, namely that the whole point of stereoscopic photography is to provide the appropriate depth to objects at a variety of distances. If the separation of the cameras had to be proportionate to the distance to the object you would have to capture multiple images with the cameras at different separations!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
moved to soapbox
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
modified 2-Feb-16 10:36am.
|
|
|
|