On 5/10/05, Jim Weirich <jim / weirichhouse.org> wrote:
> 
> James Britt said:
> > I find the literal gem image boring and impractical (in contrast to Ruby
> > itself), and I may in fact be in the minority, but I don't know how I or
> > anyone would really know that.
> 
> The icon is striking and eyecatching, I tend to like it (at least how its
> used on the page).
> 
> My only comment is that I have never seen a picture of an actual ruby gem
> in that particular shape.  I've seen ovals, circles and pear shapes
> (amoung others), but nothing in that red diamond shape.
> 
> It probably doesn't matter, I doubt anybody really cares, but it does
> bother me a bit.
> 
> BTW, I'm no expert on gems.  I'm just going on what I've seen by googling
> the topic.  I would be thrilled if someone pointed out that Rubies do
> actually occur in that shape.

googled "ruby diamond cut".  that first link looks like the "Lucky
Charms" page :)

http://www.sndgems.com/rubyeducation.htm
http://www.raru.com/images/gemstones/93rubyhtrtsa.jpg
http://64.70.201.108/ruby-bands-new-10.jpg


> --
> -- Jim Weirich     jim / weirichhouse.org    http://onestepback.org
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
> not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
> 
> 


-- 
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)