 | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Allan Bedford
|
| | | (...) there is (...) the (...) installs. (...) it (...) you (...) of us (...) The Doctor What <docwhat@gerf.org> wrote in article <19991016144608.A171...rf.org>... (...) you (...) This is why... unless you are going to provide multiple versions of (...) (25 years ago, 16-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Greatest common denominator, probably. (You want to design for the highest level that people will have in common. "Lowest common denominator" is meaningless.) (25 years ago, 16-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | (...) Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in article (...) common. (...) <puzzled grin> I was expecting some contrary comments on my post, but wasn't really expecting a debate on semantics. :) Actually the expression "lowest common (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | [Followup-to lugnet.off-topic.geek] (...) *grin* (...) Oh, certainly an amazing number of people use it wrongly. But a lot of people also say that they "could care less", when they mean that they couldn't. People don't think about what they're (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I think the most accurate math term is actually the "greatest common factor" or "greatest common divisor" (GCF or GCD for short), which refers to the largest natural number which equally divides two whole numbers in question. In non-math (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <380a066d.171574518@...et.com>... (...) common, (...) number (...) into (...) b.1884> (...) several (...) even (...) I have to be honest Todd... much of your math was just over my head. Sorry. :( (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | (...) Dictionaries, of course, are just tools reflecting common usage. Or supposed to be. That doesn't mean that common usage is correct. :) On another tangent, since we're in .off-topic already -- I really think the word "dumpster" has entered the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh...sorry, I left out the "limit as n approaches infinity" part. ;-) (...) I wonder that too. At first glance, they seem *very* incompatible. I'm not an English scholar, so I can't really say. But I think what may have happened is that the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Whoops, I didn't mean welcoming and accommodating the most infrequent ingredients per se -- glittery things like Shockwave or RealAudio, for example. I meant welcoming and accommodating browsers which happen to support special or infrequent (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yeah, maybe I'll stop now. :) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm not sure that makes sense. By definition, all things that are in common occur the same amount -- i.e. everywhere. 'Cause otherwise, it wouldn't be common. Another possible alternative phrase might be "broadest common denominator"... (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Yet another definition clash -- LOL! -- this just keeps getting confusinger and confusinger. Now I'm totally confusticated. :) In common English usage, does the phrase "common denominator" mean "denominators in common" (common within some (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | (canceled) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I forgot adult LEGO-ness! It's a wonderful opportunity to make a very confusing and misleading true statment! :) :) Male adult LEGO fans are quite uncommon. Hee hee! It's true!! :) --Todd (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) That's the direction I'm coming at this from. Denominator, in its non-math sense, means "that which gives a name to something". Applied to the topic at hand, that very logically means what sorts of documents the browser is said to understand. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | Matthew: It is refreshing to see your pedantry and stubbornness so openly on display. I don't feel quite so alone! And as for correcting what arguably is an egregious error(1), I'm not done using my lance yet, you'll have to wait your turn. In the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Aha -- I think that's a key point! In numbers and divisors and factors, the isomorphic example to "simplest thing common to all" is probably the lowest common factor (always 1) or lowest common prime factor between a set of numbers. 1 would be (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Uh, I think that'd be "inconsistency in my bookmark file". For a while, we were pedantic about the something-can't-be-b...d-a-domain rule, but then we decided to give in to the New World Order of web/dns. *grin* (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
