|
|
 | | Re: Proportions for a 2001 Monolith in LEGO?
|
| (...) Indeed it does, but the proportions always remain the same. >> Mark (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.build, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Proportions for a 2001 Monolith in LEGO?
|
| (...) I actually don't know. Does it? I've never read the books (I found that quote while looking for any page that actually listed true dimensions), and I don't believe I ever watched 2001. I remember watching 2010 when I was still pretty (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.build, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Proportions for a 2001 Monolith in LEGO?
|
| [adding .geek] (...) It's been a while since I read these books, but doesn't their physical *size change*? (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.build, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) The posts Larry is referring to were from much longer than 8 hours ago, though. (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) I posted that response over 8 hours ago, when there were no second-tier responses, but I didn't get around to authorizing it until just a little while ago (compare the date-time stamps if you don't believe me, which you probably won't). I (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) Um, no, you wouldn't. Not necessarily, anyway. (...) Again, no, it wouldn't. Not necessarily, anyway. Read the rest of the thread before you start in on responding to the first post in it, that's often a good approach in my view. Especially (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) Dollar cost of the total amount of fuel aside, it is more efficient. When you launch a rocket into space, it has to carry itself, its payload, its crew, and its fuel. Making a rocket that can manage that from an Earth-based launch site would (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Over 70 LEGO products copied
|
| (...) Well then, join the geek! (URL) I know, like the rest of us aren't) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) I'm not sure you need to develop a new launch vehicle per se, remember the assumption that the person heading this had just won the X prize.... but certainly some of the 12B cost figure is for launching things... Now the X prize vehicle (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) I don't have any problem with pursuing that end of the discussion, but I wasn't trying to kick of a debate with my original question. If it winds up there, though, I say groovy! I enjoyed that previous debate re: cost-value of space (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) I'm a big fan of space exploration. I'm an even bigger fan of universal state funded healthcare & education. Who in society will benifit most from a manned trip to Mars? Who in society benifits most from a lack of universal state funded (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) Well, there's expensive and there's *VERY expensive*, in terms of dollars per unit of work on task. Asserting that NASA falls into the latter camp (as I do) is debate fodder, so if you want to stay out of .debate, as you seem to, we won't get (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) If I read the original post correctly, the question was of fuel efficiency and the physical implications of a Moon-based versus an Earth-based launch toward Mars and beyond. Naturally this entails the cost of development, because fuel costs (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: VIRUS Sent to LEGO-fans!
|
| (...) Thank you, Mark, for the info. Even with a minimum of knowledge of file extension, anyone can figure out that it wasn't any ordinary text file attached. So I sent it to Notepad and thus my system was never infected. But I'd like to warn other (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Spam/ Most Likely Virus Sent to LEGO-fans
|
| The virus you describe is known to antivirus software and tools as w32.sober.c. See (URL) for information and instructions on how to remove it. >> Mark (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) "lugnet.off-topic.geek (group): Geeking and geek toys (computing, games, peripherals, hacking, science, etc.): discussions of a generally (but not necessarily always) positive and serious or helpful nature." You may not agree, but it seems (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) Why? I think this discussion is very appropriate to .geek, except for the parts where you are starting a debate. Any reason we can't talk about NASA here? (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) Um, no I don't. And stop resetting the FUT back to geek. (...) For NASA, sure. They blew 100B on something that could have been built out of spent shuttle fuel tanks if they had spent about 100M early in the program. For Burt Rutan, no. (or (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Downloading a Java applet?
|
| (...) Oooops Looks like that class uses another class. Not sure how you find out other required classes, and Java experts help? They're probably all in the same directory. ROSCO (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Downloading a Java applet?
|
| (...) Dave, to download the Java code, just look in the code for the <APPLET> tag, create a URL using the CODEBASE & CODE values (you may need to substitute an absolute URL in the CODEBASE). In this case I used: (URL) type that into your browser, (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
|
