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…
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
Maybe the “cubes” are the nitwits who write that stuff in the ad houses?
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.
Why can’t they be cubes?
A square is a rectangle, right? Can the same principle be applied to 3 dimensional objects?
: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.
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!
Or, you could call them a square prism (which is a subset of rectangular prisms).
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.
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).
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.
My apologies, I should have reacted less shocked.
This has got to be the geekiest thread I have ever seen in the Pit. 
Ah you see, when you stick two them together you get a cube.
Oh yeah!! In total agreement **Diane{/b]. ;j
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.
friedo, you forgot:
A parallelogram with all four sides the same length is a rhombus.
A regular solid with six congruent square faces which is filled by pitiless cyborgs bent on assimilation is a Borg Cube.
Yes but…we were doing the taxonomy of a Square. Rombii branch off in a whole 'nother direction. 
Ah. Further evidence of punctuated equilibrium.