1,375 reputation
417
bio website svn.apada.nl/svn/…
location Netherlands
age 38
visits member for 2 years, 8 months
seen yesterday

Music maniac, wanabe musician, Delphi addict.

Delphi is hobby, but quite a serious one I might add. I sincerely like being helpful, and answering questions and come up with solutions are also a kind of nice training for me.

Some of my special interests are: graphics / drawing, component building, and VCL knowledge.


Sep
21
comment Why do you need 6 points to define a location in 3 dimensional space?
Half of this answer is the same as my comment. The other half - stating that 4 points is enough - simply doesn't give enough resolution: only 82251 possible locations can be constructed from 4 points, as explained in my answer. Also: a destination point doesn't have to be exact. As explained in the Stargate series later, the destination is locked to the stargate which is nearest to the destination point.
Feb
1
comment How did they bring Fischer back to life within the 3rd layer of the dream?
+1 I agree with the last sentence. Sure, the movie explains a bit about dreaming (e.g. you never know you arrived), but doesn't extend it fully (intentional ?).
Jan
10
comment What caused and ended the time loop in Groundhog Day?
@Andrew Rita falling in love with him itself is not the crucial element; it is evidence and metaphor of the crucial element: Phil becoming completely a 'good person'.
Jan
8
comment What caused and ended the time loop in Groundhog Day?
+1 To me, this is the (kind of obvious) explanation.
Jan
8
comment What caused and ended the time loop in Groundhog Day?
+1 Agree on all points you make. Excellent answer.
Dec
21
comment Why do you need 6 points to define a location in 3 dimensional space?
@ChrisK To give a possible solution for getting more then 3 million options: maybe one of the constellation's properties (like gravity, size, distance...) is involved in the calculation: that would result in infinite resolution.
Dec
21
comment Why do you need 6 points to define a location in 3 dimensional space?
@puk Yes and no. Indeed, the stargate system has to calculate the center somehow, but that applies to Codemwnci's solution too. Of course, the picture is appealing and comprehensible, but those six points will not appear in this orderly fashion and there is (almost) no possibility that those 3 vectors even have a common intersection point. Try it yourself with some pieces of rope: you will see the sixth point has no freedom except in 1 direction from the fifth. Whether the stargate system uses vectors or not (my solution doesn't exclude that option) I don't know. Never invented the thing.
Dec
21
comment Why do you need 6 points to define a location in 3 dimensional space?
@ChrisK Yes. And then thát would be the plot hole. Note the at least.
Dec
20
comment Why do you need 6 points to define a location in 3 dimensional space?
@puk And on that other point: the (Atlantis) series explains that the stargate system automatically calibrates itself to adjust for the traversing of planets, stars and constellations.
Dec
20
comment Why do you need 6 points to define a location in 3 dimensional space?
@puk Yeah, I mixed two things up and was too short. What I meant with the cube comment: almost none of the possible combinations of 6 random points in space could form the centers of the six planes of a cube. The cube illustration as used by Codemwnci and Wikipedia at first sight describes the translation to destination rather nicely, at least sufficient to common audience, but it just isn't realistic enough for any scientific use. Those x, y and z axes aren't necessarily perpendicular to each other, nor have the same length.
Dec
20
comment Why do you need 6 points to define a location in 3 dimensional space?
@puk I edited my answer to explain my theory. But to answer your question: by point I mean a location in 3D space.
Dec
20
comment Why do you need 6 points to define a location in 3 dimensional space?
@All Forget the cube. A little change in one of those six points leads to a whole other stargate. See also my answer.
Dec
14
comment Is the opening break-up scene in The Social Network intended to be humorous?
I'm in utter consent with you about Sorkin's remarkable achievement. But now that is meant funny because of it? -1
Dec
14
comment How would you categorise Shutter Island?
I think Surprise Twist is an answer OP was in search of, so that's kind of hard to fead to a search engine.
Dec
14
comment What is rosebud?
+1 For answering a tripple question with this single post: What is rose bud?, Does it have significance? and Why?
Dec
14
comment Is the opening break-up scene in The Social Network intended to be humorous?
I also think you hit the nail by saying it's not only humorous. If a writer sees the opportunity to put something in that might be experienced as funny then he sure will, provided it fits. But like you say yourself: the film is no comedy, and even so isn't the opening scene.
Dec
14
comment Is the opening break-up scene in The Social Network intended to be humorous?
I suspect the StairMaster joke was not Sorkin's contribution, but the advertiser's/invester's. But that put aside, both examples you gave I experience as being dead-serious; I simply like to empathize with characters and both are clearly not intended being funny by them. But like I said, that's just personal taste. Now, in comparison to The Office: that certainly is with no doubt intended to be funny, although some might not find it so.
Dec
7
comment Kid's pictures in Clint Eastwood's True Crime (1999)
+1 Sounds like a great question! I must show it again before being able to answer, but I dó remember the magnificent end titles song by Diana Krall.
Dec
7
comment Mark's development of character in Operating Systems
I think the scene is also about: (2) Showing Mark goes his own way when he leaves the room to spend his time on more important things, and (3) Mark realizing that such notes should be able to spread on The Facebook too. But besides all that, I don't think this is what is being asked by OP.
Dec
5
comment Ending of Social Network
Yes, that was a little translation mixup...