The 2 Mels - cont'd

So, back a couple or so years ago, I went to see the films,

"Professor and the Madman", and, "Dragged Across Concrete".

And because of some subtle Freudian slips,

I was able to determine,

that the person acting as Mel Gibson in these two films,

is not the real Mel Gibson, but his understudy and "body double".

How do I know that ?

Because, I know the understudy, and I know the real Mel Gibson.

I also know, that this understudy / body double,

has taken over the role of being Mel Gibson way too seriously,

in that he now believes he is Mel Gibson.

How long has this been going on ?  

Since the film  "We Were Soldiers" ? 

 

I don't know.

And it is this understudy / body double

who has / had been constantly

in the presence of Rosalind Ross.

I have no doubt

that they are / were in a relationship.

But, how far has he gone ?

Is he Lars' daddy?

Not the real Mel Gibson ?

text (c) Katherine Stuart 2021

Dochas Books Film

Renovation - Furniture Pieces

Hi Guys  :)

I've been busy painting and varnishing, helping to renovate some furniture pieces, 

for Gigi, who decides the design,

before winter sets in, here in Sydney, Australia.

Some pieces that have been completed are -

A Washstand

This is an old-fashioned table,

which was used

before there was indoor plumbing.

On top would sit 

a large basin and jug full of water.

The drawer would hold 

cakes of soap and a towel.

The bottom shelf is for the jug when empty, 

as the basin would be full of dirty soapy water 

when finished, ready to be collected and emptied.

This was used to "have a wash",

cleaning one's face and personal areas,

on days between having the weekly bath.

Wooden Step

A home-made step,

to enable customers

to easily enter

Gigi's restaurant.

A Chest of 3 Drawers

This is a modern piece made of pine.

But, with antique looking

blue and white knobs,

it looks very antique.

(c) Katherine Stuart 2021

Dochas Books Film

Basic Graphics - Circle Corrections

I have been doing a lot of work

trying to get the next shape

in the graphics sequence,

and discovered an aberration 

in my version of Python 3.8  32-bit.

I don't know if this is the case 

for everyone downloading this version.

But I discovered,

that when drawing the circle,

this program doesn't produce

a balanced shape.

For a circle of -

   Pt.forward(1)

   Pt.right(1)

the four equidistant points on the circle are -

    (0.00, 0.00)

    (57.79, -56.79) 

    (1.00, -114.59)

    (-56.79, -57.79)

    (-0.00, 0.00)

They should be balanced, something like -

    (0.00, 0.00)

    (57.29, -57.29)

    (0.00, -114.58)

    (-57.29, -57.29)

    (0.00, 0.00)

On closer inspection of the 4 points,

I found them to all be 

one pixel to the left of where they should be.

With some trial and error, I discovered,

that if I correct the initial orientation of the arrow, by

       Pt.right(0.5)            degrees

Then, the 4 equidistant points on the new circle are -

    (0.00, 0.00)

    (57.30, -57.30)

    (-0.00, -114.59)

    (-57.30, -57.30)

    (-0.00, 0.00)

Which can be seen to be balanced.

So I advise, if you have this problem 

when drawing a circle on this program, 

then make the adjustment of -

     Pt.right(0.5)

at the beginning of the sequence.

N

Also, I had been using -

    n  =  radius / 57.35

This seems to be a little inaccurate, from observing above, that -

    2  x  radius  =  114.59

    Thus,

    radius  =  114.59 / 2

                =  57.295

    when the program is moving at the base level of -

       Pt.forward(1)

   Pt.right(1) 

   

    and,

    n    =    the chord subtended by a    1 degree    turn of the circle

Hence, to get a circle of the desired radius here, using -

       Pt.forward(1)

   Pt.right(1)

n    needs to be adjusted to -

    n  =  radius / 57.295

For example, if a circle is required, of -

    radius  =  50

in this program, the adjustment needed is -

    n  =  50 / 57.295

which gives you a chord that is slightly shorter, 

and the circle drawn will end up with -

    radius  =  50

not,

    radius  =  57.295

I have tested this,

and it is accurate enough up to -

 

    radius  = 400

which is a circle that is a bit larger 

than an approx. 39cm (diagonal) computer screen.

:)

text (c) Katherine Stuart 2021

Dochas Books Film