 | | 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)
|
