 | | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
(...) A recent commercial for some make of Kia shows a series of crash test simulations, apparently to tout the durability of the vehicle. The voiceover concludes by saying "Pretty impactful, eh?" Impactful! As of this morning, neither (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
(...) Yes, 'impact' can be used as a verb, but not when the author/speaker should be using 'affect' or 'influence.' People seem to use it when they're trying to make a greater 'impact' on their audience, and that bothers me. I'm not alone on this: (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
(...) My university would always say a major was "currently impacted" instead of "full." Geez. (...) There seems this mass delusion that the word "flaunt" is the word "flout". Why would he wave your warning about in a brazen fashion? I don't get it. (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) flaunted (...) These people are trying to say "flout", but can't tell the difference. Maybe it's the American accent that causes the problem <g,d&r> Kevin ---...--- NEW Cottage kit, 577 pieces! (URL) TOWN (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
(...) You might not want to impact them too hard... I checked four different dictionaries (three printed, one online) and can find in each a reference to the word 'impact' being both a noun and a transitive verb. (1) Ex. Noun = a striking together; (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
(...) I live in Northern California and those words mean exactly the same thing they mean to you. BTW I spent most of my teenage years in Western Washington and never owned an umbrella until I went off to college-- in Baltimore! Maggie C. (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
(...) I guess I just inherently know what is meant by each of those words including rain and rainshower activity when used by a Western Washington forcaster after having lived here my whole life. Rain means that the area in question is going to have (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
(...) Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? It's like the apocryphal saying that Inuits have 47 (or so) words for snow. In fact, they don't; they have a word for fluffy snow, a word for wet snow, a word for dry snow, a word for drifted snow, a (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
(...) I'm going to have to stick up for Methodology. A good methodology is way more than just method. (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
(...) You don't live in Washington do you? There's a big difference between rain and rainshower activity here. Not to mention drizzle, mist, showers, thundershowers, downpours... Jason (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
(...) As far as I'm aware, the first on-screen use of that "verb" was in Star Wars, when someone observed that proton torpedos "didn't go in, just impacted on the surface." (...) "Proactive" is a particular bugaboo re: workplace pretensions, but it (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Speak?
|
|
(...) No comment on the origin of "me like," but here's a misuse that really cheeses me off: overuse of the word 'impact,' especially as a verb. It used to be a noun meaning a physical collision, but is often used when the speaker should be using (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
(...) Good Science is good but they need to get it right. The propelent in firearms contains its own oxidents (SP) a modern firearm will fire in a vacumm. Think about a bullet, the powder is inside a metal casing capped with a plug (the bullet) (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
(...) I agree. FYI - Galaxy Rangers was my favorite. (...) I agree again. This is my favorite episode so far. (...) I'm on the wagon Mark M. (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Geek Speak?
|
|
I tend to be very aware of linguistic quirks, such the overuse of the word "literally" (ie, it's literally raining cats and dogs out there) or the whole implied/inferred conflation. In my more uptight past I used to get annoyed by some of these, but (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
(...) They did indeed change it, from more of a "This is the Universe" to "This is me and the Universe I live in" kind of feel. (...) Minor nit: Air is not required for sound, but matter is. Similarly, as the "no sound in space thing" goes: If you (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
I love Firefly, it captures the essence of what space-based civilization would be like in real life. I mean Star Trek paints a nice picture but real life isn't like that. In Firefly, each world has its own unique culture and technology level like (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
(...) Do it! The trick is to get rid of everything else you have built and use some abundant color, like red one the inside. Remember, red shag is the carpet of the future! Good luck! --Kyle (URL) (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) Per Dave's last message, y is unknown (can't be 0), which Jeff has solved to 855/11. -Rob. (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Hey, that's super! And I finally found an online reference at the U of Georgia site, so I can probably handle these in the future. Thanks for the clear explanation and the solution. Dave! (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Oops. Hang on there Adrian, read for content. The five points as given in the initial problem (including 0,0) will not solve to a simple parabolic equation. Eliminating 0,0 does give us the solution specified above. Bleh. Adrian (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Sorry, but this doesn't go through 0,0. Solving x=0, y=0 gives 0=855/11, which is clearly not true, so this isn't the equation he's looking for either. Adrian -- www.brickfrenzy.com (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Yes, it does. If you just have the last four points to work with, then you definitely have an upward-turned parabola, symmetrical about the y-axis. Here's what you have to do to find the formula for a parabola, given three points: y = ax^2 + (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Hmm. Well, now that I think of it, the vertex could be x=0 with y as an unknown. Does that change anything? Dave! (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Oops - I'd better correct myself before else does. Your parabola does NOT exist. It is NOT symmetrical. I solved it for the three points with x > 0 My bad. :( Jeff J (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Ugh - I can't believe it takes a math problem to get me to post for the first time in weeks. The formula for a parabola is: y = ax^2 + bx + c You only need three points to define a parabola, but since you've made yours symmetrical about the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Are you looking for the defining equation of the form y = Ax2+Bx+c ?? or for something else? If the former wouldn't you just solve for "A" and "B" given that "C" is known to be zero (since you said that 0,0 is a point and is the vertex it (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Yet another math problem
|
|
This one should be pretty simple for you math-literate folks out there, but it's giving me a dreadful time... I have five points and am trying to define the parabola that contains them (if such exists). The points are: (0,0) (which is also the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
Gulp. I thought you'd might say that. I was originally thinking of doing a mini scale version in the same vein as Jon's Bug, but the more I look at it, the more I think this might be my breakthrough into a larger project. I think my collection as (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
(...) It has redefined the Star Trek universe, but I'd like to argue not for the better. I've tried to like Enterprise. I really have. But its continued crapping on the mythos set down by all the other incarnations, coupled with some serious (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
(...) That it is indeed. And they use bullets instead of lasers or phasers or blasters, which is cool too. I'd build the Firefly, but I currently have two very large projects in the works so I doubt I'd have time to do it before someone else got to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
Enterprise has been helping to fill the sci-fi quotas as well in our household. The production values are incredible (wide screen, hi-8 filming, best quality CGI), although occassionally the scripts can be cheeseball, but as I said before this is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
Just collecting some pictures this morning..... ;) Considering the job you did on the Nebuch, I would LOVE to see what you could do with this. Indeed - it is refreshing to see space taken seriously as good storytelling will allow...placing a rifle (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
(...) Enterprise has consistently surprised me. For some reason (Quantum Leap, if I had to guess) I'm always inclined to despise Scott Bakula, but I really like him as Archer. I don't even mind especially that Enterprise contradicts some "canonical" (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
(...) Gotta agree with you all the way down the line. I wanted to like the show, but it just hasn't done it for me to date. I might give it another look - sometimes it takes awhile for a show to gel. Enterprise has been a great revival of Star Trek, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
(...) I'm curious about this show, but have to admit that the 2 or 3 times I've sat down to watch it, I wasn't entertained enough to get to the end of the show. I _want_ to like this show, as I really love the concept. But I find the writing and the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
(...) I'm curious about this show, but have to admit that the 2 or 3 times I've sat down to watch it, I wasn't entertained enough to get to the end of the show. I _want_ to like this show, as I really love the concept. But I find the writing and the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Firefly Fans?
|
|
(...) Considering that space is "the final frontier", it's really unsurprising that the wild west parallels continue to be drawn. It really is a neat show, and I've been enjoying it. (...) Joss Whedon, who makes the show, also created Buffy the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Go Gatchaman B.O.P.!
|
|
Those are all the same show..sort of. In the 70's the show was released in Japan as 'Ninja Team Gatchaman'. Shortly thereafter, it was brought to the united states and released here. However, it was deemed too violent for a US cartoon, so it went (...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: MS IE SUCKS!
|
|
(...) Well, realistically, you want as many existing web sites to work as possible. I can't think of a reason where you'd want to turn on the "treat this pedantically" flag for someone else's site in real life. (...) Do you have an example of what (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
