|
|
 | | Re: trading
|
| (...) That would be better suited to market.theory than .general, at least in my opinion. (...) I find trades to be a fair bit of work and I find myself doing them less and less. The advent of automation at sites to aid buying and selling tilts it (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) Why impose more limits than necessary? Of the 10 modules in our (very successful) test GBC, these 4 would have to be eliminated for being out-of-spec: (not a multiple of 32) (URL) I forgot, you can't use 48x48 baseplates. Add this: (URL) to (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| (...) Wow. Mondayness for me as well. I agree with you, Rob. That said, to start, Steve and Co. have their little thing goin' on, and I just wanted to point out that, within the parameters as layed out by them, one has toe potential to make a module (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: trading
|
| (...) This was not for trading, but rarther the discussion of trades or not. Therefore I see, that it can be here as "general discussion". So: great to hear that you like them too! S (21 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade)
| | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
| "David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message news:IA3zL9.xKJ@lugnet.com... (...) What's the big deal? Either you can make a module to comply with simple specs, or you can't. If you need more space and can't fit everything inside 1 - (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
|
