[Goober5000]

Meh...
http://www.lipsons.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/escher/ascending.html


Anyway, more LEGO fun...

[Anaz]

at least that one isn't too hard to figure out...still looks really weird on first glance tho...

[Knight Templar]

Glue

[Gortef]

that's really neat

[CP5670]

That one is quite nice too; it's remarkable that those bent beams are able to hold the top up. I'm just wondering how he got the technic pieces to bend that much (the ones used in the cube thing the guy is holding); I probably could not do that even if I wanted to...

[Goober5000]

Pliers, apparently.  And it's not the bent beams that hold the thing up, it's hidden support pillars.  Check out the base URL...

http://www.lipsons.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/escher/belvedere.html

And the first one again, for good measure...
http://www.lipsons.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/escher/ascending.html

[Petrarch of the VBB]

LONG LIVE LEGO!

And please, stop saying "Legos". Lego is a collective noun, like sheep or fish. The plural and the singular are both Lego.

Have you seen those others, like the Klein Bottle, and the mathematical surfaces? these people have too much time on their hands.

Which brings me to: this thread

[Goober5000]

If you want to nitpick, LEGO is a registered trademark and shouldn't be a noun at all when referring to the toy.  It should be an adjective - LEGO bricks.  But that's being pedantic.  It depends on the person - different people use the term in different ways.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Originally posted by Goober5000
It should be an adjective - LEGO bricks.  But that's being pedantic.  

No, thsi si being pedantic.

They're not just bricks, there are all sorts of different components. So it should be LEGO Components.

[Goober5000]

eh, that was an example.  LEGO bricks, LEGO axles, LEGO figures, LEGO components.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Ah, only now do you say it was an example.

anyway, don't mind my occasiional ravings about people's poor grammar, it's the influence of five years of fanatical English teachers.

[Goober5000]

It was not poor grammar.  It was implicit - and you're allowed to do that, in English or in any language.

An example of implicitness in English grammar is "that" - "I drank the Coke I bought today" vs. "I drank the Coke that I bought today".

I know what you mean about harping after people's grammar though - that gets on my nerves sometimes too.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Goober5000
If you want to nitpick, LEGO is a registered trademark and shouldn't be a noun at all when referring to the toy.  It should be an adjective - LEGO bricks.  But that's being pedantic.  It depends on the person - different people use the term in different ways.

You are crazy. They'll always be called legos. Always have been. It's a kid thing and won't be changed. NEVER I TELL YOU!!!

[Goober5000]

As I said, that's to nitpick. I still call them Legos or LEGOs.

[Sandwich]

Petrarch, Goober - kindly do shut up. They're the LEGO brand - it says so on the LEGO website.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
AARRRRGGHHH!

I agree...

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Petrarch, Goober - kindly do shut up.

:Bentusi voice: We shall not be BOUND!

[CP5670]

I have seen this same argument come up a couple of times on Lugnet; the general consensus there seems to be that they should be called "Lego bricks" since Lego is usually used for The Lego Group, which is the company. I just say either Lego pieces or Lego elements.

Petrarch, Goober - kindly do shut up.

this statement somehow really made me laugh...

[Nico]

Originally posted by Corsair
aha!!!

ever played diablo2? there's a whole level like that, very funky

[Corsair]

Originally posted by venom2506
ever played diablo2? there's a whole level like that, very funky

nope...
but how can you play on a level like that if the whole thing is just an illusion? That's...that's..that's....SO FRIGGIN WIERD! Gonna drive me crazy...