PDA

View Full Version : Starburst aren't cubes!!!

gonzoron
12-20-2002, 04:31 PM
OK, it's pretty lame for a first pit rant, but it irks me to no end that new starburst commecials say: "They're not square, they're three-dimensional CUBES!"

Nitwits! Look at your product... Then take a 3rd grade geometry class. Then tell me again what shape they are. OK?

I'll admit rectangular prism doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but come on now...

Mtgman
12-20-2002, 04:36 PM
I'd like to weigh in here in the name of geek solidarity. In memory of our times in M:tG threads and other geekly issues, I join you in denouncing the evils of such ignorant advertising.

So we typed day and night
by the 60hz flicker
they have the candy
but we have geometry

Peace,
Steven

Ice Wolf
12-20-2002, 04:38 PM
Maybe the "cubes" are the nitwits who write that stuff in the ad houses?

Shagnasty
12-20-2002, 04:52 PM
Who in the hell has ever mistaken one for a two-dimensional square anyway? I have never seen anyone try to mail a letter with one by mistake.

Enderw24
12-20-2002, 05:06 PM
Why can't they be cubes?
A square is a rectangle, right? Can the same principle be applied to 3 dimensional objects?

CRorex
12-20-2002, 05:14 PM
:eek:

Ender: Umm square are a special case of a rectangle.

A rectangle is defined as any object with two sets of opposite parrallelelllelel (yes I can't spell that word) sides.

A square is defined as a rectangle where all sides are of equal length.

So a square IS a rectangle. But by definition a rectangle isn't a square.

A starburst is a rectangular solid because L, W, H are not all equal values. And if they aren't all equal values it's not a cube. It's a rectangular solid.

If a starburst was made where length width and height were all the same value with it would be both a cube and a rectangular solid, but it isn't, so it aint.

CRorex
12-20-2002, 05:17 PM
Sorry, may have jumped the gun... but I was expecting there to be a follow up of: If squares are rectangles, then rectangles are squares so starbursts are square!

Podkayne
12-20-2002, 05:20 PM
Or, you could call them a square prism (which is a subset of rectangular prisms).

Mangetout
12-20-2002, 05:44 PM
Cuboid

What's all this rectangular prism stuff I keep seeing; we called 'em cuboids when I was a lad.

Aye it were reet grand in them days.

Enderw24
12-20-2002, 05:45 PM
Thank you CRorex. I knew that a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. The problem was that I have been misinterpreting that phrase.
I assumed that a square covered any type of object with four straight sides but those with four 90 degree angles and unequal sides were more properly refered to as rectangles.

Thus, I assumed that an object with L:5 and W:3 could be refered to as a square but it was more proper to call it a rectangle. Therein lay my confusion.

So the more accurate statement would be: A square is a (type of) rectangle but a rectangle is not a square (most of the time).

12-20-2002, 06:09 PM
um. maybe they meant that each rectangular prism is composed of cubes, fused together so as to appear as one big piece?

no?

huh.
well, I tried.

CRorex
12-20-2002, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Enderw24
Thank you CRorex. I knew that a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. The problem was that I have been misinterpreting that phrase.
I assumed that a square covered any type of object with four straight sides but those with four 90 degree angles and unequal sides were more properly refered to as rectangles.

Thus, I assumed that an object with L:5 and W:3 could be refered to as a square but it was more proper to call it a rectangle. Therein lay my confusion.

So the more accurate statement would be: A square is a (type of) rectangle but a rectangle is not a square (most of the time).

My apologies, I should have reacted less shocked.

Diane
12-20-2002, 07:52 PM
This has got to be the geekiest thread I have ever seen in the Pit. :D

EasyPhil
12-21-2002, 12:07 AM
Ah you see, when you stick two them together you get a cube. :D

kambuckta
12-21-2002, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Diane
This has got to be the geekiest thread I have ever seen in the Pit. :D

Oh yeah!! In total agreement [b]Diane{/b]. ;j

friedo
12-21-2002, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by CRorex
A rectangle is defined as any object with two sets of opposite parrallelelllelel (yes I can't spell that word) sides.

Ultra-nitpicky:

A quadrilateral is a polygon of four sides.

A quadrilateral whose opposite sides are parallell (can't spell that either) is a parallellogram.

A parallellogram whose angles are all 90 degrees is a rectangle.

A rectangle whose sides are all the same length is a square.

iamthewalrus(:3=
12-21-2002, 12:47 AM
friedo, you forgot:
A parallelogram with all four sides the same length is a rhombus.

Snooooopy
12-21-2002, 01:05 AM
A regular solid with six congruent square faces which is filled by pitiless cyborgs bent on assimilation is a Borg Cube.

friedo
12-21-2002, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by iamthewalrus(:3=
friedo, you forgot:
A parallelogram with all four sides the same length is a rhombus.

Yes but...we were doing the taxonomy of a Square. Rombii branch off in a whole 'nother direction. :)

Bryan Ekers
12-21-2002, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by friedo
Yes but...we were doing the taxonomy of a Square. Rombii branch off in a whole 'nother direction. :)

Ah. Further evidence of punctuated equilibrium.

kambuckta
12-21-2002, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Ah. Further evidence of punctuated equilibrium.

Isn't that punctured?? :D

Muffin
12-21-2002, 06:46 AM
Picasso (http://www.angelfire.com/co/artgeometry/) is laughing from the grave at this thread.

12-21-2002, 08:36 AM
I like 'three dimensional cubes.' OK, it's not like 'cube' can't be generalised, but I bet the person writing it would have thought 3-d was superfluous.

If they said cubic (instead of cuboidal) we might find a compromise...

astro
12-21-2002, 09:04 AM
While not "cubes" precisely Starburst candies are actually non-relativistic anti-planes with edges extending into nth dimensional vector spaces that occupy an orthogonal surface in spacetime where the division between space and time depends upon the observer. In the 26 spacetime dimensions of the Starburst cube these extra unphysical states wind up disappearing when the flavor packed Starburst cube collapses into a singularity and the escape velocity from the cube's gravitational field becomes greater than the speed of light.

ultrafilter
12-21-2002, 11:15 AM
A square is a rhombus and a rectangle, and the proper term for the shape of a Starburst is "parallelepiped".

Eonwe
12-21-2002, 11:54 AM
And Bats aren't bugs!!!

A Monkey With a Gun
12-21-2002, 12:52 PM
I think you are mistaken in assuming the good people at Starburst are reffering to geometry. The original starburst used a measurement known as "flavor" (fl) to quantify the amount of fruit based enjoyment. With the splitting of the atom, the Starburst scientists were able to increase the amount of enjoyment to 2fl. This was revealed to the public in the radio campaign: "Starburst: the weight's 2fl". The public, who are drooling morons, misunderstood and heard "Starburst: the way to flavor"

Subsequent advances in computerization raised enjoyment to fl2 and is the flavor level most of us grew up with. The public, who are drooling morons, thought this refered to the oblique. Recent breakthroughs in cloning and signal transduction have enabled the starburst scientists to raise the quotient yet again to its current fl3. The public, who are drooling morons, has misunderstood this advance in quantum flavor packing. Starbursts no longer possess a squared flavor level. They are now cubes. They are still, of course, three dimensional as the hypothesized multidimmensional super candy is still nothing more than science fiction.

Myrr21
12-21-2002, 02:45 PM
Starburst are also parallelepipeds. I love that word!

SCSimmons
12-21-2002, 02:46 PM
I'm willing to forgive their error, as I feel they made up for it with the commercial that started with a girl unwrapping a Starburst with her tongue ...

12-21-2002, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by gonzoron
Nitwits! Look at your product... Then take a 3rd grade geometry class. Then tell me again what shape they are. OK?

Wow you must be smart.. :D I didn't take geometry til 10th grade.
(I was a year behind in my math classes. Blah!)

Hehe.

deathawk
12-21-2002, 07:41 PM
I'm still trying to get past the phrase "three-dimensional cubes"....

12-22-2002, 06:18 AM
Well, maybe they're using a different metric. If lengths are measured differently in different directions, then they could be cubes. (They could be spheres in a new york metric.)

friedo
12-22-2002, 06:26 AM
Is that like a New York Minute?

Or is it more like a Bronx Cheer?

:D

ioioio
12-22-2002, 07:25 AM
So, those chunks of ice floating in my soft drink should properly be called "ice rectangular solids"?

friedo
12-22-2002, 07:27 AM
Mine are more like trapazoidal solids.

astro
12-22-2002, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by lainaf
So, those chunks of ice floating in my soft drink should properly be called "ice rectangular solids"?

Holy crud!!! You're right!! Ice "cubes" are no more cubes than my third nipple!!! Look at one for God's sake. Look at it! They're not perfectly square by any stretch of the imagination!! They're rectangular solids!

Oh faithless lying world!! Your hellish geometrical lies consume me with the rage of 10,000 white hot suns!! HOWWWWWLLLLL!! ARRRGGGHHHH!!!

Another Primate
12-22-2002, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by astro
Holy crud!!! You're right!! Ice "cubes" are no more cubes than my third nipple!!! Look at one for God's sake. Look at it! They're not perfectly square by any stretch of the imagination!! They're rectangular solids!

Oh faithless lying world!! Your hellish geometrical lies consume me with the rage of 10,000 white hot suns!! HOWWWWWLLLLL!! ARRRGGGHHHH!!!

It's worse than that. My ice cube trays have non-parallel sides (they tilt slightly outward).
And they're not truncated pyramids, because only one of the side faces is slanty. The other three are straight-up-and-down. All four sides meet each other at 90 degree angles. The top and bottom are rectangles and are parallel to each other, only three of their sides meet with the vertical pieces at 90 degrees. The fourth juncture is about 85 degrees.
So what are they? Solid trapezoids?

Let's not even talk about the ice cubes in the corners of the tray. Their one rounded side makes my brain hurt. Let's just throw those straight into my cup of tea to cool it off.

12-22-2002, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by friedo
Is that like a New York Minute?:D

Yes.

For the really interested, the distance between two points isn't the length of a line joining them, but the length of a horizontal and a vertical (or n/s and e/w) lines joining them. Say I start here and end up 3 blocks north and 4 blocks east. On a plain (or plane) I've gone 5 blocks, but in a city where I can only go n/s or e/w I've gone 7 blocks.

Craneop2
12-22-2002, 08:19 PM
Umm.. Sorry but my current starburst no longer is a cube OR a rectangle.

It now resembles a relief map of the snake river canyon complete with a tiny Evil Knevil parachute indention!!

Shalmanese
12-23-2002, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Beeblebrox
I think you are mistaken in assuming the good people at Starburst are reffering to geometry. The original starburst used a measurement known as "flavor" (fl) to quantify the amount of fruit based enjoyment. With the splitting of the atom, the Starburst scientists were able to increase the amount of enjoyment to 2fl. This was revealed to the public in the radio campaign: "Starburst: the weight's 2fl". The public, who are drooling morons, misunderstood and heard "Starburst: the way to flavor"

Subsequent advances in computerization raised enjoyment to fl2 and is the flavor level most of us grew up with. The public, who are drooling morons, thought this refered to the oblique. Recent breakthroughs in cloning and signal transduction have enabled the starburst scientists to raise the quotient yet again to its current fl3. The public, who are drooling morons, has misunderstood this advance in quantum flavor packing. Starbursts no longer possess a squared flavor level. They are now cubes. They are still, of course, three dimensional as the hypothesized multidimmensional super candy is still nothing more than science fiction.

what he said

slortar
12-23-2002, 03:07 PM
Hey, if we brought the Golden Triangle into this thread, maybe we could get Hiryuu to start posting again. I'm sure he has something to say about the antigravity applications of Starburst candies...