Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=zw05ia0l&trope=SwissMoment
to:
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=zw05ia0l&trope=SwissMoment Original dodgy 4 entry YKTTW]]
Changed line(s) 18 from:
n
* This troper and his sister were juuust knowledgeable enough at the time to actually get the \
to:
* This troper and his sister were juuust knowledgeable enough at the time to actually get the \\\"Binary Standup\\\" bit at Enzo\\\'s tenth birthday compilation party.
o And this troper marvels at the cognitive dissonance inherent to the previous entry. Going from \\\"zero-one\\\" to \\\"one-zero\\\" does not ten make.
foamy: Cut this material, the people arguing mostly seem to have a weak grasp of relativity at best, rendered a moot point, as the initial post doesn\\\'t actually seem to be an example of this trope anyway:
* In Futurama, the FTL drive on the ship works by staying still and moving the universe around it. While patently ridiculous, this troper had helped design a video game for a school project using OpenGL, and found that doing so was significantly easier than moving the camera and the ship itself.
o Funny story about that... it\\\'s entirely possible it isn\\\'t patently ridiculous after all.
+ Unless you adhere to the \\\"Brain in a jar\\\"-theory, billions of creatures moving the universe around them as they \\\"move\\\" would tear it asunder.
+ Which is exactly what they\\\'re doing according to relativity. So either Einstein was wrong or you are.
Bryndon: So while you were at it, you left this in-
\\\"** Technically, before you had nice libraries like OpenGL that would help you do all this 3D stuff (i.e., you programmed your own darn renderer every time), it was actually much easier to wrap your head around changing the entire scenery around than to change an abstract \\\"camera\\\" (because let\\\'s face it, if you know the camera is always going to be at the origin and always facing along one axis, why bother with extra calculations? Just do your matrix transformations and drop the depth axis, and you\\\'ve got a technically correct non-perspective-utilizing 2D wireframe). This troper happens to possess a couple of books on BASIC from The Eighties that had examples that worked this way.\\\"
which confused the hell out of me until I checked the discussion. I DO NOT LIKE DEDUCTIVE THINKING THAT MUCH.
o And this troper marvels at the cognitive dissonance inherent to the previous entry. Going from \\\"zero-one\\\" to \\\"one-zero\\\" does not ten make.
foamy: Cut this material, the people arguing mostly seem to have a weak grasp of relativity at best, rendered a moot point, as the initial post doesn\\\'t actually seem to be an example of this trope anyway:
* In Futurama, the FTL drive on the ship works by staying still and moving the universe around it. While patently ridiculous, this troper had helped design a video game for a school project using OpenGL, and found that doing so was significantly easier than moving the camera and the ship itself.
o Funny story about that... it\\\'s entirely possible it isn\\\'t patently ridiculous after all.
+ Unless you adhere to the \\\"Brain in a jar\\\"-theory, billions of creatures moving the universe around them as they \\\"move\\\" would tear it asunder.
+ Which is exactly what they\\\'re doing according to relativity. So either Einstein was wrong or you are.
Bryndon: So while you were at it, you left this in-
\\\"** Technically, before you had nice libraries like OpenGL that would help you do all this 3D stuff (i.e., you programmed your own darn renderer every time), it was actually much easier to wrap your head around changing the entire scenery around than to change an abstract \\\"camera\\\" (because let\\\'s face it, if you know the camera is always going to be at the origin and always facing along one axis, why bother with extra calculations? Just do your matrix transformations and drop the depth axis, and you\\\'ve got a technically correct non-perspective-utilizing 2D wireframe). This troper happens to possess a couple of books on BASIC from The Eighties that had examples that worked this way.\\\"
which confused the hell out of me until I checked the discussion. I DO NOT LIKE DEDUCTIVE THINKING THAT MUCH.
