Re: intersect . . . invisible images

I remember him as particularly good as Geppetto in a film of Pinocchio. Richmond. On 7/18/17 4:58 am, Jim Lambert via use-livecode wrote: Richmond wrote: all the cheap American series... Oh, and, inevitably "Mission Impossible”. Yesterday the actor Martin Landau, who appeared in that show,

RE: intersect . . . invisible images

> Richmond wrote: > > all the cheap American series... Oh, and, inevitably "Mission Impossible”. Yesterday the actor Martin Landau, who appeared in that show, died at the age of 89. Jim Lambert ___ use-livecode mailing list

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > These gave me an incredibly distorted view of American culture . . . > > After all the series all seemed to consist of John Wayne knock-offs > walking around > as if they had filled

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

My parents got a TV when I was 9 (1971), but, because they were educational and social snobs did not allow me to watch anything except "nice" children's programmes on the BBC (one of the presenters later went to prison for paedophilia). I did not really get into TV until, oddly enough, I was

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

On 7/17/17 2:56 AM, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote: That's because Richmond doesn't share your sense of humour, and never really could understand North American jokes . . . In this case it's probably because you were either an infant or mostly just potential when the Twilight Zone

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

That's very powerful imagery; Thanks. Richmond. On 7/17/17 1:26 pm, Roger Eller via use-livecode wrote: On Jul 14, 2017 6:01 AM, "Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode" < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency with interset

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

On Jul 14, 2017 6:01 AM, "Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode" < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency with interset > an image can continue intersecting with another when it is, supposedly, invisible . . . > > Certainly,

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

-- You can come back now - Now I was told that by my older son, Alexander, who stays in Munich. He found it very funny, as did his Music Professor (who told it to him) who is German. My wife found it foul and tasteless (well, it IS tasteless). -- Re: intersect . . . invisible i

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

ewhere to park his bike. > > -- You can come back now - > > Now I was told that by my older son, Alexander, who stays in Munich. > He found it very funny, as did his Music Professor (who told it to him) > who is German. > > My wife found it foul and tasteless (well, it

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

e back now - Now I was told that by my older son, Alexander, who stays in Munich. He found it very funny, as did his Music Professor (who told it to him) who is German. My wife found it foul and tasteless (well, it IS tasteless). -- Re: intersect . . . invisible images -- Very many peop

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

> Richmond M. wrote: > That's because Richmond doesn't share your sense of humour, > and never really could understand North American jokes . . . As I read this thread (as a non-native speaker), none of the jokes was against you as person. And mine was based on a very old forum thread connected

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

That's because Richmond doesn't share your sense of humour, and never really could understand North American jokes . . . R. On 7/17/17 10:40 am, hh via use-livecode wrote: JLG wrote: Has anyone noticed that since we hijacked this thread, Richmond has disappeared? He has the lost sock, because

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

> JLG wrote: > Has anyone noticed that since we hijacked this thread, Richmond has > disappeared? He has the lost sock, because men wearing kilts have three woollen socks. (Sorry, if you laugh now, one minute later, you are wrong. They simply have a spare sock with them, just like a good car

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

On July 16, 2017 7:43:27 PM Jeff Reynolds via use-livecode wrote: I think it's not quark and dryer spins that take away those lost locks but an intersection of this universe with another existing in the same space but different dimensions. And if the infinite

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

On 07/16/2017 05:41 PM, Jeff Reynolds via use-livecode wrote: I think it's not quark and dryer spins that take away those lost locks but an intersection of this universe with another existing in the same space but different dimensions. And if the infinite number of universes theory is true

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

I think it's not quark and dryer spins that take away those lost locks but an intersection of this universe with another existing in the same space but different dimensions. And if the infinite number of universes theory is true the one universe must be the recipient of all said lost socks from

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

> On Jul 16, 2017, at 12:42 , Bob Sneidar via use-livecode > wrote: > > said owner failed to take into account an extremely obscure BUG ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

It's not a theory. It's a demonstrable fact. I cannot comment on the status of Jacque'a missing sock though, as a certain cat I once had who himself professed to have been "sent back" by a future owner of Jacques Time Travel stack to test it's veracity, was unable to return to his own time

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

The dryer spins too, so the effect is doubled. You may be on to something here. We should foot the cost of investigation and proceed apace. On 7/15/17 12:49 PM, Mike Bonner via use-livecode wrote: I think part of the problem might be the connection with the quantum here. Even if the sock is

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

It compiles but it puts the sock back into the dryer where it disappears again. Maybe we need a SOCKS proxy to intercept it. On 7/15/17 12:42 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: On 07/15/2017 09:24 AM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote: It errored with "can't find object" and crashed

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

I think part of the problem might be the connection with the quantum here. Even if the sock is located momentarily, there is no telling how fast or what direction it is actually going. There is also the question of quantum "spin" which would seem to indicate that the washer is a co-culprit in the

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

On 07/15/2017 09:24 AM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote: It errored with "can't find object" and crashed my dryer. :-( that's because there's no a 'catch' clause. try open dryer get socks catch missingSock put missingSock into dryer finally close dryer end try -- Jacqueline

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

It errored with "can't find object" and crashed my dryer. :-( -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com On July 15, 2017 9:25:35 AM Roger Eller via use-livecode wrote:

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

try open sock for write write sock until EOS -- (end of sock) close sock end try On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 2:32 AM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > On 7/14/17 4:28 PM, Stephen Barncard via use-livecode wrote: > >> And of course, this dovetails

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

On 7/14/17 4:28 PM, Stephen Barncard via use-livecode wrote: And of course, this dovetails nicely into Jacque's disappearing socks theory. I lost a sock about six years ago and it still hasn't shown up. I've kept the single remaining one of the pair in hopes that the missing one would hone

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

And of course, this dovetails nicely into Jacque's disappearing socks theory. Lol on this wonderful thread. I love you guys. On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:08 Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > LOL. OK way OT now.. (Richmond I have a long way

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

LOL. OK way OT now.. (Richmond I have a long way to go to catch up to you on OT…) the so-called "100% empirical" is such a bogus idea in the first place, as many a modern brain scientist will tell you. And we know some of the top "empirically trained" guys. What measurements, by whom and under

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

On 7/14/17 12:22 PM, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote: If intersect looks for existence rather than appearance why does it tale transparency levels into consideration? That just exchanges the dimensions of the object rectangle for the position of its "visible" outline. It is still

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Richmond Mathewson wrote: > I'm not sure if all the adherents to the Use-List would accept the > existence of the pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies > as they are empirically unverifiable. > > LiveCode and object within a LiveCode stack, are, on the other hand > 100% empirically

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Ahh, very helpful to understand that utilization. On 7/14/17, 8:16 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of Mark Waddingham via use-livecode" wrote: For example, you might have an image which incorporates a mostly

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

You explained it well enough . . . however some of us (well, 2 of us at least) do love wandering off topic. Richmond. On 7/14/17 9:16 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: As I attempted to explain (clearly not very well!) intersect uses the transparency of pixels of the object when

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

As I attempted to explain (clearly not very well!) intersect uses the transparency of pixels of the object when rendered in isolation to determine what parts of the object should be used to check for intersection. For example, you might have an image which incorporates a mostly transparent

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

I'm not sure if all the adherents to the Use-List would accept the existence of the pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies as they are empirically unverifiable. LiveCode and object within a LiveCode stack, are, on the other hand 100% empirically verifiable. It might be argued that

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Ha! It not that deterministic: Your blend level is a matter of person evolutionary "work" that you have or have not done to date. Oh.. this metaphor has great edu possibilities. BR On 7/14/17, 7:26 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode"

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

OT: your physical/food body is "intersected" by your pranic, astral, mental and superconscious bodies, all of which are "invisible." Hopefully they fully intersect most of the time unless you are sleeping or actively astral traveling. (Not a good idea for the untrained) but I would change the

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Hes the invisible man with a multi-phasing skill. Just being invisible doesn't remove him from physical constraints. Add the ability to set a phase state based on transparency level and there ya go. You're welcome. On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

I hope his shin does; unless, of course, his transparency level is below a certain threshold. The problem is NOT the invisible man; it's the kid he fathered on a visible woman so we have the 50% visible child, also known as "The situation that H.G.Wells didn't think about too carefully."

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

If intersect looks for existence rather than appearance why does it tale transparency levels into consideration? R. On 7/14/17 7:19 pm, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote: I'm not sure why the explanation would be difficult. Existence is different from appearance. Intersect looks for

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

The invisible man still had to worry about opening doors and bumping into things. His shin could intercept painfully with the corner of a coffee table whether visible or not. On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:19 AM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > I'm not sure

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

I'm not sure why the explanation would be difficult. Existence is different from appearance. Intersect looks for existence at a particular location, visibility is how the object looks. Substitute "blue" for "visible" and it's the same thing. On July 14, 2017 5:03:09 AM Richmond Mathewson via

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Indeed, I won't list them but I get at least 5 use cases popping into my head the moment I saw this, where one would want the intersection between 1 object and an invisible object 2: just one: solution to a puzzle could be invisible. as user moves tiles around the intersect would trigger "got

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

On 2017-07-14 12:01, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote: It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of transparency with interset an image can continue intersecting with another when it is, supposedly, invisible . . . Originally intersect only worked on the rects of the

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Those invisible images are a bit like hidden monsters; jumping out at unwary programmers! Richmond. On 7/14/17 1:40 pm, Lagi Pittas via use-livecode wrote: Hi Richmond I would think there could be use cases where that would be useful (hidden monsters, unexploded bombs) I assumed that they

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Hi Richmond I would think there could be use cases where that would be useful (hidden monsters, unexploded bombs) I assumed that they left this undocumented feature (bug?) in because the "fix" is so simple but with the other use cases not so simple - or is it? Lagi On 14 July 2017 at 11:01,

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

Thanks, Mark, that is a solution that would work very well. In my solution to the problem I just "parked" the images off-screen once they had been intersected with. HOWEVER . . . at the risk of sound a teeny-weeny bit b*tchy . . . It does seem illogical that while one can set levels of

Re: intersect . . . invisible images

On 2017-07-14 11:20, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear . . . There I am fooling around setting up an "exam" for my "kiddiewinks" when I discovered something quite unsuspected about intersect ; So I have some code that goes something like this: if