m is different from email spam.
Email spammers want you to buy their product. You are the target of the ad contained in each email spam you receive. Comment/web spammers want your readers to buy their product. You (the blogger, author, moderator) are not the target.
2. Web spammers are social engineers.
Email spammers write messages to get your attention. Comment spammers write messages to escape your attention. They want you to believe they are real bloggers, real people, writing real comments, so you’ll approve the comment and publish it on your site. They use flattery, appeal to your good nature, and simply lie in order to convince you to give them the benefit of the doubt.
3. Web spammers are basically advertising on your blog..
..and they're keeping all of the profits. They’re not even asking your permission first. Right now someone is offering to sell links from your blog to anyone willing to pay a few dollars (or a few cents). If your blog is well known, it may even be listed by name, with backlinks for sale at a set price.
4. It’s all about the backlinks.
Web spammers are selling links from your blog to their clients. They do this to game the search engines and trick your readers into visiting dubious web sites. Their clients are sometimes seemingly harmless, but are often peddling fake pills, porn, scams and malware. Sometimes they’ll use “buffer sites” – that is, innocent looking web pages intended to disguise the fact that they’re really advertising something more sinister.
5. Spammers employ humans.
Not all spam is delivered by spambots. Spammers are increasingly using humans to write and post comments by hand. Typically they are exploiting low-paid workers in internet cafes, schools and factories. Sometimes they are viral marketers paid to promote a new product. Either way they are trying to exploit your blog for their profit – and hoping to do it without you noticing.
…
Added by Danny Boyes at 4:51am on October 24, 2013
he results are accurate enough.Good to go!Current working directory is set to: C:\002_VIDEO\02_UNI\TU_GRAZ\01_DISSERTATION\02_RESEARCH\08_POMODORO\01_SIMULATION_MODEL/03_HONEYBEE\VF_00\gridBasedSimulation\start cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineRuntime error (IndexOutOfRangeException): index out of range: 0Traceback: line 271, in script…
is set to: C:\002_VIDEO\02_UNI\TU_GRAZ\01_DISSERTATION\02_RESEARCH\08_POMODORO\01_SIMULATION_MODEL/03_HONEYBEE\VF_00\gridBasedSimulation\start cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get Commandlinestart cmd /c C:\Users\paratufello\AppData\Roaming\Ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\unnamed_7_DS.batWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineWMIC PROCESS get CommandlineRuntime error (IndexOutOfRangeException): index out of range: 0Traceback: line 271, in script…
dy for a wall where we want to analyze its openings. I made a parametric wall that then get's analyzed with different geometries and the idea was just to leave it there for the weekend as it morphed through different iterations. However, after successfully running a test simulation on my pc (just with one iteration), it fails to run the same test on the workplace computer. Any help would be greatly apprecated! Here is the following error:
Sorry! But the number of available CPUs on your machine is 4.
Honeybee set the number of CPUs to 4.
Grid-based Radiance simulation
The component is checking ad, as, ar and aa values. This is just to make sure that the results are accurate enough.
Good to go!
Current working directory is set to: C:\ladybug\Parametric_Shading_Wall\psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux\gridBasedSimulation\
Failed to read the results!
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
Runtime error (PythonException): Failed to read the results!
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
PS. It says to see line 336…
ed file and code below:
Color ColorAt(Mesh mesh, int faceIndex, double t0, double t1, double t2, double t3) { // int rc = -1; var color = Rhino.Display.Color4f.Black;
if( mesh.VertexColors.Count != 0) { // test to see if face exists if( faceIndex >= 0 && faceIndex < mesh.Faces.Count ) { /// Barycentric quad coordinates for the point on the mesh /// face mesh.Faces[FaceIndex].
/// If the face is a triangle /// disregard T[3] (it should be set to 0.0).
/// If the face is /// a quad and is split between vertexes 0 and 2, then T[3] /// will be 0.0 when point is on the triangle defined by vi[0], /// vi[1], vi[2]
/// T[1] will be 0.0 when point is on the /// triangle defined by vi[0], vi[2], vi[3].
/// If the face is a /// quad and is split between vertexes 1 and 3, then T[2] will /// be -1 when point is on the triangle defined by vi[0], /// vi[1], vi[3]
/// and m_t[0] will be -1 when point is on the /// triangle defined by vi[1], vi[2], vi[3].
MeshFace face = mesh.Faces[faceIndex];
// Collect data for barycentric evaluation. Color p0, p1, p2;
if(face.IsTriangle) { p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; } else { if( t3 == 0 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,1,2} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; } else if( t1 == 0 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,2,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; //t0 = t0; t1 = t2; t2 = t3; } else if( t2 == -1 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,1,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; //t0 = t0; //t1 = t1; t2 = t3; } else { // point must be on remaining subtriangle {1,2,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; t0 = t1; t1 = t2; t2 = t3; } }
/** double r = t0 * p0.FractionRed() + t1 * p1.FractionRed() + t2 * p2.FractionRed(); double g = t0 * p0.FractionGreen() + t1 * p1.FractionGreen() + t2 * p2.FractionGreen(); double b = t0 * p0.FractionBlue() + t1 * p1.FractionBlue() + t2 * p2.FractionBlue();
ON_Color color; color.SetFractionalRGB(r, g, b);
unsigned int abgr = (unsigned int)color; rc = (int) ABGR_to_ARGB(abgr); **/ var c0 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p0); var c1 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p1); var c2 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p2); float s0 = (float) t0; float s1 = (float) t1; float s2 = (float) t2;
float R = s0 * c0.R + s1 * c1.R + s2 * c2.R; float G = s0 * c0.G + s1 * c1.G + s2 * c2.G; float B = s0 * c0.B + s1 * c1.B + s2 * c2.B; color = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(R, G, B, 1); } } return color.AsSystemColor(); }
…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013
te some cut sheets, but not to optmize material, rather define some cut lines. Everything that I am cutting is made of planar wood elements, but there are very specific geometries (mostly straight lines) and I have to put tolerances and radiasas at the corners in order to cut on the cnc mill. Spending time to figure out how to automate is necessary, but I am stuck!
One thing the definition is doing is taking my brep modeled components in rhino and makking them into 2d close curves and laying them side by side. It works...not ideal as its not layed out in a sheet, but that is not the most important part.
Another particular problem is that you will see some notches in the curves, which other pieces will slip into, so different slots need different specific offsets (making them larger) as a toelrance to allow for material play. This I don't even know how to set up so maybe it will just have to wait.
THE MAIN QUESTION, and super important would be, LIFESAVER:
At all 'inward' corners...which I think will always mean concave corners (most are 90 degrees, but are within to sides, instead of a corner sticking out). I'm sure its obviousy, but the reason being the outward corners a circular dril bit can cut, but inward ones need an arc profile extended beyond where the corner of the other piece will fit into. The drill bit i am using is 6mm, so 6mm diamters arcs is what i'm working with.
I have managed to put such an arc at every vertices of each cut piece. The problem being some stick outward isntead of cutting into the piece. So each one needs to be orieneted correctly. Ideally they would also only draw into inward corners, but I can always delete them out. I think maybe I am missing a more logical mathematical way of defining?
For these geometries it is not very important which side the half circle arc in on in the inward corners, but I also have some geometries that I will have to control where the circles face according to the rest of the cut piece.
The cutouts in the middle of the pieces that are curves do not need such corners obviously.
The picture is an example drawn
I hope this isn't too specific and long. in general though automating fabrication, and controling pracitcal math and orientation problems like this is itnersting to me!
THANKS…
perienced with grasshopper, but so far I've managed to combine the following:
Giulio Piacentino's "Catenary arch from height" script
Pirouz Nourian's "Mobius" script (Obtained from a friend)
End Result:
Here's where I'm stuck: I want the mobius twist to revolve around the midpoint of the arch, but the script uses the input values to determine the endpoints, resulting in a weird sinuous shape when viewed from above. Also, the secondary end points (generated by the mobius script, determining the width of the surface) are generated by default along the z axis, resulting in an arch that only touches the "ground" at two points. I attempted to work around this issue by trying to force the zHeight parameter to correspond with the y axis (thus rotating the arch 90 degrees so it would lay "flat"), but the script interprets the third point as a value and not as an actual point to bisect. I thought this might be an issue with the C# component that I obtained from Giulio Piacentino's script, so I attempted to tinker around with the source code. Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in C# so I only managed to mess everything up (I've since recovered the code from the cache). Anybody got some ideas? -BC …