 | | Re: Golden Ratio (was Over 70 LEGO products copied)
|
|
"Bram Lambrecht" <bram@cwru.edu> wrote in message news:Hs3wLt.254@lugnet.com... (...) instance, (...) for (...) (first (...) number in (...) (final (...) exist (...) the (...) My God.. LOL. On Lugnet you can learn about everything! I allways use (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: me vs. microsoft
|
|
(...) Hey Franklin, I meant to get back to you earlier, but work is just crazy these last few days.. Anyway, I had a quick boo at your pics and code. If you have a look at (URL) view the source code, you'll see that I use Tables extensively. What I (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: me vs. microsoft
|
|
Never mind. I managed to figure it out. Basically, if you call the images a BACKGROUND attribute of the table cell (instead of putting an IMG tag inside the table cell, like I was doing), MSIE will render the page just fine. I'd like to point out (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Golden Ratio (was Over 70 LEGO products copied)
|
|
(...) Yes. My very bad high school math teacher made us watch it a lot. (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Golden Ratio (was Over 70 LEGO products copied)
|
|
(...) for a good Golden Section site: (URL) remember "Donald in Mathemagic land" Disney video? Jeff (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
