In days past spam came in taper sided cans to make it easy to remove the product.
The horizontal cross section is rectangular with rounded corners on the vertical or nearly vertical corners.
For the tapered sides, the shape of the product /can would be a truncated rectangular pyramid with rounded sloping corners/edges.
For the truly vertical; sides, The shape would be a rectangular prism with rounded vertical corners/edges.
And the question is…?
Yeah, the previous thread got treated real bad. I’m displeased with both the smartasses who hijacked it and the moderater who closed it.
There is indeed a name for the shape of spam, and it’s called a cylinder… specifically a rounded oblong cylinder, using terminology defined by Euclid’s Elements.
Allow me to apologize for those of us who are seriously committed to fighting ignorance, rather than just making jokes in GQ.
(There is a place for jokes in GQ, but it’s after a satisfactory attempt at a serious answer has been made.)
FBG, the OP is referring to this closed thread, where springears got rather heated because she came here looking for a straight answer and got nothing but a jokes and brushoffs, or a “fool’s reply” as she worded it.
In response, the mods closed the thread and chided her for her language.
I feel this was a completely inappropriate way for both us Dopers and the mods to welcome a new user.
Did we read the same thread? I recall several serious answers, but the OP ignoring them and getting downright ridiculous about it. It was apparent that no answer would have satisfied her.
Thanks bughunter for the reference site to Euclids Elements which indeed call all prisms as well as circular cross sectional pieces cylinders. With all of the possible solid shapes to consider solid geometers may have expanded the list.
Hence my calling it a prism as that was the nomeclatue that came to mind.
The post FBG was fussy about must have been a different post as I was about to post my answer when I found it closed.
Just for the record, spingears and rackinfool are presumably two different people.
For the record, I thought the discussion in the other thread was reasonable, and well within the limits of what is normally allowed in GQ, with the exception of rackin’s unusually thin skin.
I’m sure you meant to say “where rackinfool got heated…”
Let’s review this:
Post # 1: the question.
Post #2: serious attempt at answer.
Post #3: joke.
Post #4: serious attempt to evaluate the question.
Post #5: OP insults Dopers who gave answers, dismisses answers as insufficient.
Post #6: mild joke at OP’s refusal to accept answer given, serious assertation that previous answer was correct.
Post #7: OP makes illogical comment, takes offense at mild joke above.
Post #8: joke.
Post #9: apology for mild joke in Post #6.
Post #10: follow up on joke in Post #3.
Post #11: responding to above comment, OP expresses admiration for joke in Post #3. OP then goes on to make cutesy, then inane and irrelevant comments.
Post #12: comment on OP’s intense attitude.
Post #13: I call OP on illogical comment in Post #7, dress her down for reaction to mild joke in Post #6, and assert that the type of answer she wants does not exist.
Post #14: OP gets huffy about comment in Post #12, makes semi-coherent plea for simple answer, sprinkled with weird metaphysics and little digs at Dopers for failing to provide said simple answer.
Post #15: Doper who made joke in Post #2 makes serious attempt at answer, implies he thought it was a joke question at first (hence his joke answer above).
Post #16: comment on weirdness of Post #14, assertation that desired answer does not exist.
Post #17: comment on OP’s intense attitude, assertation that desired answer does not exist.
Post #18: OP criticizes Posts #2 & #3, rehashes illogical comment, waxes upon the greatness of the question, and asks again for type of answer that three people have said does not exist, amidst chastising me for Post #13.
Post #19: tangent.
Post#20: Mod closes thread, notes that desired answer does not exist, chastises OP for negative comments.
It’s unfortunate that the second reply was just a joke, but 3 of the first 4 answers were serious. The OP refused to give credence to those answers, and ignored subsequent statements that there wasn’t an answer such as she was looking for. Add in her snide remarks and oddball musings, and I’d say she brought it on herself.
I think the layman calls it spam-shaped. No joke, it’s a cultural reference like cranberry sauce-shaped.
Euclid uses ‘oblong’ is a very specific way, namely, a right-angled quadrilateral which is longer one way than the other.
In popular parlance, however, ‘oblong’ is roughly equivalent to ‘stretched longer in one direction over the other’ and can be applied to any shape. An oblong circle can be an elipse or an egg-shape, e.g.
Most people would call an Euclidean ‘oblong’ simply a ‘rectangle.’ Thus, Spam is a rounded rectangular cylinder, in common parlance.
Peace.
I thought there was nothing wrong with the other thread except for the impatient and petulant demands for an immediate straight answer.
I thought it was pet food.
Seriously though the last can I saw was Trapeziod in shape & that was last week.
I closed the thread. If you’re displeased with me or my actions, take it to the Pit. Them’s the rules.
I just finished a can of spam a few weeks ago(don’t ask!).
I remember it being smaller at the top and wider at the base. Is that a cylinder?
I like the rounded trapezoid, myself.
spingears. Don’t start a thread in GQ by posting what would have been your post in a closed thread. I won’t look kindly on this kind of thing in the future.
I should close this one, but there is decent input here, without the “I don’t like your answer…next!” reply from the OP. That’s why I closed the first one.
In the (first) OP by rackinfool, s/he said in one retort that it was a “simple” question and in another a “valid” question. Quote: “I do not mean to be rude, but I also do not like judgements placed upon a simple question unless you have a simple answer. Thank you.”
I contend that the question in both posts was neither simple nor valid.
From the dialogue, it would appear that the questioners really wanted to know, and the responders really wanted to explain, the shape of the can in which SPAM is contained for retail sale.
I pray that this simple, valid, answer will close this one, as well. I’ve got to go wrap.
For those of you who keep mentioning prismatic, pyramidic, and trapezoidal shapes… are you sure you’re thinking of the real Spam brand product of canned ham, or perhaps some other type of canned ham?
This is the shape of an actual can of Spam.
If it were a live feed, it would be a Spam can cam.
Peace.
I demand to know the shape of Zigeunerbraten!
From those official Hormel photos, I don’t see a tapered shape on the can.
I’m not convinced of the original OP’s assertion that there is a simple name for this shape – think about it this way: why should there be a simple name when the shape really isn’t that simple? That said, and with our resident math gurus sitting out of this exercise, I’ll propose filleted cuboid section (the “section” takes care of the flat top) as the appropriate descriptor. Hope that makes everyone happy.
spingears you are full of …it and it isn’t spam.
Spam is not sold in any can other that the same one currently in use.
Per Euclids Elements it is a rectangular cylinder with rounded corners.
Corned Beef comes in the tapered can! A rectangular truncated pyramid.