 | | Re: Is lego *truly* unlimited? (some thoughts)
|
|
(...) Ok, so it's asymptotic, not logarithmic, and it approaches 4, so 4 was a perfectly cromulent guess. However. Since the sum of any line N of Pascal's triangle is apparently 2^N (starting at row 0), and you'd theoretically count EVERYTHING (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lego *truly* unlimited? (some thoughts)
|
|
(...) Hi David, Thats why I said something more finite, like our collections would be easier/possible to calculate. (...) All that fancy math........ (...) I shouldve x-posted there in the beginning. Thanks, Samarth (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lego *truly* unlimited? (some thoughts)
|
|
(...) The 2004 LEGO Company Profile white-paper says "Over the years, enough LEGO bricks have been manufactured to give an average of 52 each to every single one of the world's 6 billion inhabitants." Another place indicates "Annual production is (...) (20 years ago, 8-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGOfactory.com launches... and it's big!
|
|
(...) The only emulator that I know of is Microsoft's own Virtual PC. It comes in various flavors, starting at about $120 US. That seems a little steep just for running a little (and free) Lego app. But yes, it is an option. (20 years ago, 13-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGOfactory.com launches... and it's big!
|
|
All right here we go. Finally my profession pays off to my past-time and AFOL peers. Have discoverd that lego.com is multihomed. I traced the LEGO site from Sydney as my (and USA) domain servers appear to connect to one host 192.208.45.167. I then (...) (20 years ago, 9-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGOfactory.com launches... and it's big!
|
|
(...) Definitely! To me it came up as trying to be hung off a LUGNET path which clearly is wrong unless I *really* missed a memo! FTX URLs can be tricky to get right. But hats off to Jake for bringing us this info in a hurry, FTX URL snafus are not (...) (20 years ago, 9-Nov-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: The Final Frontier never saw this...
|
|
(...) Not at all. The Pathfinder, Challenger, Enterprise and Columbia were all built under the original contract to Rockwell. Pathfinder was strictly a mockup (an 'orbiter simulator'), Challenger was (originally) constructed for stress-testing the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: The Final Frontier never saw this...
|
|
(...) Originally only funding for three orbiters were authorized and two shuttles (Columbia and Enterprise) were ordered in the summer of 1972. NASA wanted five orbiters but the Office of Management and Budget felt three was sufficient to meet the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | The Final Frontier never saw this...
|
|
(URL) it was sad, but the Enterprise still makes my eyes misty. I was 9 years old when I saw this on the telly for the first time. I remember hearing the Trekkie writing campaign to get Carter to name the first shuttle 'Enterprise'. I also remember (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone seen the LEGO 65537 at hobby shops yet?
|
|
(URL) Since I own the store I think we can work out something to help a fellow fan;) If you have any questions please feel free to write to me. Bill Connick (20 years ago, 31-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Wonderfull!
|
|
Great pics! I love pretty much all celestial fireworks. They make me feel very small and insignificant, and that's always a good thing! More people should pay attention to astronomy. It definitely whacks me on the side of the head with the proper (...) (20 years ago, 29-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone seen the LEGO 65537 at hobby shops yet?
|
|
(...) Yep, 65537 in hexadecimal is 10001... I wonder if we'll see others in this number range? Mark (20 years ago, 29-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Transient Lunar Phenomenon
|
|
(...) I watched the whole thing all night long with some friends, It was astounding! :-Devin (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: TV-B-Gone
|
|
(...) I saw it... and yet... Yes, I can understand hating TV. But in your own home, you have your own remote, so you don't need this. In a public place, isn't it the proprietor's privilage to choose what, if anything, is on? Can you imagine the riot (...) (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | TV-B-Gone
|
|
My dad told me about this a few days ago, and Jake just blogged it. (URL) can't wait to get mine. I hate those dang idiot boxes. -Tim (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Transient Lunar Phenomenon
|
|
Man, it's cool when the billiard balls arrange themselves thusly: (URL) 2 second exposure taken through the eyepiece of an Edmund Scientific Astroscan... Cheers, Mark (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: iMac
|
|
(...) Oh, I assumed as much. I mean, I've been using Linux as my primary desktop for long enough that having things break does actually surprise me. I think the only times I messed up my desktop was when messing with the (proprietary) video (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: iMac
|
|
(...) OS-X is awesome. At least I think so... :) In 1.5 years of using OS-X I've had 1 (count em folks only one) kernel panic[1]. Very stable OS. I'm coding against J2SE 1.4.1 on a lowly iMac G3 (using Project Builder, not even XCode) and I'm very (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Universal Universal remote
|
|
My iPaq has NEVO remote software that will allow you to control just about anything (except, apparently, the Mindstorms RCX). I have it set up for several tv's in local restaurants because they are always too loud or showing something meaningless (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sonar question
|
|
(...) If you saw the world in sound waves, then yes, you could see them. A bat can pinpoint objects smaller than a fly and at speeds that the human eye has trouble being able to track. Not because light is faster than sound, which it is not, but (...) (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
