 | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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: fun fun fun - new BP6 dual celeron system
|
|
(...) Well, after many hours of testing, I've decided to run these at 522 max (95x5.5). NT just doesn't seem to run too happily for some reason on this system at 550. I could probably try to tweak it out some more, but for what I'm going to be using (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
