 | | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) I feel privaleged to be present when this important algorithm was created. But, I am not so sure that Todd's very important contribution into the consumption of food and to the further appreciation of the culinary delights is really as limited (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) Well let's just say it was a thinking and reflecting kind of evening. --Todd (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) <more snip> (...) It may be sound in theory, but I think you need to recheck your math a bit... (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
On 02:13 16-08-04, Todd Lehman wrote (...) <MUCH GEEKAGE SNIPPED> (...) Me thinks someone was over thinking this a bit too much.... excellent geek analysis... Note that this algorithm doesn't apply well to liquids in bottles or (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) Get some sleep! :-) -->Bruce<-- (now I'm going to have make French Toast in the morning...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
Last night at IHOP, after copious amounts of beer at Rocklands, a few of us were talking about how we cut our food up into differently-sized portions during the eating process, and I realized that an algorithm exists for maximizing the total (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.events.brickfest, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Ventura goes to Brickfest
|
|
(...) Oops, my bad. I sent it to the email address listed by the "From" in your post. I guess that means that your t[IAddedThisAgainToA...tule.qc.ca address isn't working though. (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Try to think of the glass as half full. (was: Re: Indiana Jones extends his vacation)
|
|
(...) Bruce & Lindsay, Thanks much for this great laugh on a dreary afternoon. :-D -Andrew (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Pac-Man Wedding Cake Topper
|
|
(...) Oooo! Check out the "marriage" versions of the figures-- looks like they once came in 'tux' and 'gown' form: (URL) luck finding them, but hey, that'd be pretty cool! DaveE (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Pac-Man Wedding Cake Topper
|
|
(...) I received a "not amused" glare when I suggested that very idea, but I appreciate the support! (...) than trying a futile search for a non-existent topper. Thanks! Dave! (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Pac-Man Wedding Cake Topper
|
|
(...) Wouldn't the easiest thing be to just take out a slice of cake? :) Failing that, it looks like there's a couple figures on Ebay: (URL) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Pac-Man Wedding Cake Topper
|
|
I have a friend who'd like to have a Pac-Man cake topper on her wedding cake, ideally in the form of a sculpture of Mr. and Ms. Pac-Man, perhaps with a love-you heart of some kind. Any suggestions? These aren't LEGO-savvy people, so a LEGO-based (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) Embarassing? No. Regrettable, perhaps. But please do bear with us. This one thread is messier than one might like, yes, but hopefully overall future admin activity will be the better for it. As for ObNASA's I did consider including some but (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
Don't you think it is a little embarassing that the thread is now 75% administration Lar? I pushed "nested inline" in the expectation of lots of juicy NASA stuff. You didn't even include an "ob NASA" anywhere. :( You must go back N levels to (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Legged Robots
|
|
(...) Leonard, I found the article on robotic leg motion very interesting. I hope to find time to play with springy legs in the near future. Kevin (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) Shuttle = great idea in 1972, ridiculous albatross in 2004. You're undoubtedly right about the $4.3B being spent before a single SRB is lit. What really bugs me is the systematic way they're trying to kill all manned spaceflight by unfunding (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) It's not over yet. Look at House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's comments in these articles: (2 URLs) He's quoted as calling the proposed NASA budget cuts as "unacceptable" and followed that by saying, "It would be very hard to get this bill to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Legged Robots
|
|
(...) Not to disparage the results of his studies, but that has got to be the funniest thing I've heard in months. On the surface, I can see that it's a valid source of robotics research, but if I think about it too hard I keep coming up with images (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) All those new initiatives were a neat idea, but as you can see Shuttle has eaten them alive. Congress voted $4.3 billion for a shuttle that won't fly before that money is all gone. It has always done this because our lawmakers are addicted to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) That sucks. That was a great way to potentially generate billions of dollars in NASA R&D without having to spend tax dollars to pay for it all. It also allows a greater variety of ideas to be explored, since noone has to justify experimenting (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
