>>> actually, i think the big thing is that they be "rotationally"
>>> symmetric, not "reflectively" symmetric.  like a fan blade...not like
>>> a bird.
>
>I would imagine getting a rectangle to be rotationally symmetric would be
>pretty trivial.. think 2-blade propeller.

right.  i didn't mean that things that were reflectively symmetric
were not okay, but just that that wasn't the operating principle.
birds are not rotationally symmetric because they only have feet on
the bottom.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."