 | | me vs. microsoft
|
|
I need some assistance w/ HTML vs. MS Internet ExploDer... I'm working on a new webpage format for my job. They've already decided on the basic "look" which includes rounded corners (because it "looks cool"). >:/ Here's what my web page is (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Golden Ratio (was Over 70 LEGO products copied)
|
|
(...) Yeah, but I wanted to post this somewhere, and here looked like a pleasant spot :) Dave K -what are you doing, Dave? Would you like to hear a song? (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Golden Ratio (was Over 70 LEGO products copied)
|
|
(...) The golden ratio is related to a different sequence: the ratio between consecutive numbers of the Fibonacci sequence approaches Phi. Or phi, if you go backwards. So, if the monolith were golden-ratio realated, its sides in the primary three (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Golden Ratio (was Over 70 LEGO products copied)
|
|
(...) Right. My point was that the Greek Golden ratio has nothing to do with the proportions of the monolith. --Bram (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Golden Ratio (was Over 70 LEGO products copied)
|
|
(...) Oops, sorry. Your cite wasn't very clear. (...) Nope, it doesn't... --Bram (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Golden Ratio (was Over 70 LEGO products copied)
|
|
(...) For the record while I posted that text, I did not WRITE it. Bram trimmed off the cite I gave to the site I glommed the text from. I mean, really, does that prose read like something I'd have written? Sorry for any confusion (that Bram's (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Golden Ratio (was Over 70 LEGO products copied)
|
|
(...) Mathematics aside, it's been a long time since I read the 2001 series (2001, 2010, 2061, 3001), but I recall that in one of 'em, there's a statement with the idea that the monolith is based on squares starting at 1, and the thought went on to (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Proportions for a 2001 Monolith in LEGO?
|
|
(...) Wasn't the original monolith a pyramid in "The Sentinel of Eternity?" Did the short story specify its dimensions? Or was it a tetrahedron? I can't remember... Dave! (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Golden Ratio (was Over 70 LEGO products copied)
|
|
(...) There isn't a link there, because the Golden Section isn't 2:3... The golden ratio is derive from a rectangle where if a square is cut from the rectangle, the remaining piece is another golden ratio rectangle. So, the sides of the original (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Proportions for a 2001 Monolith in LEGO?
|
|
(...) I meant to put the emphasis on just the word *size* there, to imply that. Ooops. :) (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
