Slashdot Mirror

This is where the Byron nuclear power plant is that powers my home and my electric vehicle:

http://goo.gl/maps/Y27U

I live roughly 80 miles east of there. Does it appear to be in anyone's backyard? For this argument, I don't consider a corn field or other parcel of land used for food production to be a backyard.

I'll bite goatse.fr

Not a bad looking house.. http://goo.gl/maps/QrPT

http://goo.gl/maps/MpJ6

Right on gmaps?

http://goo.gl/BLBo Too bad they don't sell these anymore. Mine works great!

I believe this is a troll, but I am responding anyway because I think there are actually people out there that think this. So I prefer to think of this as a +0 Devil's Advocate post.

No one could have a functioning grasp of the fundamentals of science and agree with your statement. Science is about building predictive models about the world. The models do not, and scientists do not expect, that a scientific model's internals form a strict correspondence with reality, as long as it generates reliably testable predictions within a well-defined domain.

Religion is not science; evolution is. Religion doesn't belong in public school science classrooms, evolution does. I have heard dozens of arguments challenging this basic statement, but none I have not been able to take apart piece by piece.

If you are so inclined to engage me on this, please read a summary of my previous responses first so as not to waste everyone's time.

"Unimaginably huge"?

It's the number of water molecules in a little more than 8 gallons of water. If you can't imagine 8 gallons of water, then you don't belong here.

Here's a quick calculation involving an actual unimaginably huge number: 1 hella / Graham's number ~= 0.

That's how big 10^27 is: close to zero.

"Unimaginably huge"?

It's the number of water molecules in a little more than 8 gallons of water. If you can't imagine 8 gallons of water, then you don't belong here.

Here's a quick calculation involving an actual unimaginably huge number: 1 hella / Graham's number ~= 0.

That's how big 10^27 is: close to zero.

Um, if you're gonna get it tattoo'd, you probably want to go with the more traditional form of: e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0. This single equation shows a relationship between 5 important mathematical constants, as opposed to the other form, which just shows 3 (I don't think -1 qualifies, as i is the more fundamental).

Or, you could go with the more general form: e^(i*theta) = cos(theta) + i*sin(theta).

I might also go with the Euler product form of the Riemann zeta function, arguably the greatest unsolved problem in all of mathematics: sigma(n=1, infinity, n^-s) = pi(p prime, inv(1 - p^-s)).

I wouldn't worry about putting stuff on your arm that might get proven wrong—it doesn't mean F=m*a isn't a significant step in the evolution of human thought just because Einstein improved upon it. Speaking of Einstein, how about the Minkowski invariance relation (I think that's what it's called?): s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (i*c*t)^2.

Another significant idea worth memorializing is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem...you'd have to find a form using logic notation.

Finally, you might think about getting N E R D C O R E across your knuckles...

we herd u like browsin so we put a browser in yo browser so u can browse while u browse.

also, we herd u like macs so we put one pedal in ur car.

(ahem, i don't actually have a problem with macs, i just thought that last one is too good to pass up. well, i don't like the way apple exerts control over the entire hardware/software stack, but as long as we have options i guess i don't have a problem with them existing in general, i just won't buy one.)

This is the one thing that prevents me from using Chrome regularly, at least on my desktop machine (64-but Ubuntu 9.10). I haven't looked into the reasons why, but FF will display PDFs using the browser plugin provided by acroread, and Chrome just gives me a blank page.

Grab the extension that uses google's pdf viewer. http://goo.gl/GqNg Hope this helps

http://goo.gl/nJvN - identifying the negative symptoms of a capitalistic/monetary society.

Followed by: http://vimeo.com/7857584
and http://vimeo.com/7938805
for possible future developments of a better system than the current one.

The way I see it. There isn't much incentive to change from the current system. Just like
there are better keyboard layouts than Qwerty out there.. however just because another layout is 10% better
than the current one isn't good enough.
So far capitalism hasn't failed on a grand/massive scale for changes to occur... alas.

Just yesterday I wrote a short article ( http://goo.gl/dko2 ) after reading about how Facebook are using Mathematics to help with Failure rates in their datastore clusters.

There is a 24 page presentation by Avinash Lakshman and Prashant Malik, which describes (page 17 onwards), how the company are using Probability Theory to help them detect failure in a datastore.

Probability Theory is just one area of Mathematics, and degree level Mathematics would usually include at least one or two modules in Probability.

If I were an Operations Director or Development Team Leader at a large Social Networking company, I would certainly view University Level Mathematics as +1 for anyone applying to join the team.

The short article is here and the clickable link in that article should take you directly to somewhere (slideshare, etc) where you can view the 24 page .pdf

I would expect a meteor impact to look more like this http://goo.gl/1gcU but maybe just because it's the only one I've seen in person. According to Google Earth the whole area is pretty flat with exception of the circle of depressed area where there is now a river.

Maybe it's some kind of ancient moat around a giant collapsed culture. The Chinese built a wall - what's to say an ancient culture didn't do the opposite and dig a trench.

Wow, having the number of users Bing has must really be a debilitating competitive disadvantage. And it's totally not fair, because Google never had to deal with that situation...they went straight from zero users to their current numbers...right?

So I can see Microsoft's point. When a company like Google starts to depend on keeping users by locking them in instead of by innovating and providing a better product, that's objectionable. Oops.

Let's see if I can find any reasonable responses. Here. That was easy.

The point is that Google Docs will be available offline.

How can a right turn accident ever not be the fault of the driver?

Yes she might have been distracted and yes she might have walked into the turning circle of the truck, however, one cannot assume every pedestrian knows how a truck swings, I see lots of people choosing a bad position at a crossing because they aren't aware of how a truck turns - but this doesn't change the fact that the truck probably shouldn't have been in that crossing anyways, if she wanted to cross she would in most places around the world have right of way.

Here in Denmark the truck driver would definitely have been found at fault in that kind of accident.

At a red light the truck was making a right turn on to Front Street from Blue Jays Way. The woman was crossing Front Street, on the West side of the intersection.

Just take a look at the intersection from google maps - http://goo.gl/6VDM

Make sure that you compare the image in the story to google street view - the story does not specify which direction the driver was going, but that can be correlated from the location of the body and the story
http://goo.gl/YaW0
http://goo.gl/PZlA

Now if the truck was at the red light and was making a legal turn to the right then that means that the woman was jaywalking at a red light - completely unprotected.
Even if she was protected, the driver was already in the intersection thus giving him the right of way. Just because the person is on the street does not give them the right of way, they must obey the same rules as vehicles. You yield to vehicles that are in an intersection just as you yield to pedestrians. The only difference is that you allow them to cross before you turn IF you are both in the right of way at the same time AND you yield the right of way to them if they were already in the street and the light turns red on them.

How can a right turn accident ever not be the fault of the driver?

Yes she might have been distracted and yes she might have walked into the turning circle of the truck, however, one cannot assume every pedestrian knows how a truck swings, I see lots of people choosing a bad position at a crossing because they aren't aware of how a truck turns - but this doesn't change the fact that the truck probably shouldn't have been in that crossing anyways, if she wanted to cross she would in most places around the world have right of way.

Here in Denmark the truck driver would definitely have been found at fault in that kind of accident.

At a red light the truck was making a right turn on to Front Street from Blue Jays Way. The woman was crossing Front Street, on the West side of the intersection.

Just take a look at the intersection from google maps - http://goo.gl/6VDM

Make sure that you compare the image in the story to google street view - the story does not specify which direction the driver was going, but that can be correlated from the location of the body and the story
http://goo.gl/YaW0
http://goo.gl/PZlA

Now if the truck was at the red light and was making a legal turn to the right then that means that the woman was jaywalking at a red light - completely unprotected.
Even if she was protected, the driver was already in the intersection thus giving him the right of way. Just because the person is on the street does not give them the right of way, they must obey the same rules as vehicles. You yield to vehicles that are in an intersection just as you yield to pedestrians. The only difference is that you allow them to cross before you turn IF you are both in the right of way at the same time AND you yield the right of way to them if they were already in the street and the light turns red on them.

How can a right turn accident ever not be the fault of the driver?

Yes she might have been distracted and yes she might have walked into the turning circle of the truck, however, one cannot assume every pedestrian knows how a truck swings, I see lots of people choosing a bad position at a crossing because they aren't aware of how a truck turns - but this doesn't change the fact that the truck probably shouldn't have been in that crossing anyways, if she wanted to cross she would in most places around the world have right of way.

Here in Denmark the truck driver would definitely have been found at fault in that kind of accident.

At a red light the truck was making a right turn on to Front Street from Blue Jays Way. The woman was crossing Front Street, on the West side of the intersection.

Just take a look at the intersection from google maps - http://goo.gl/6VDM

Make sure that you compare the image in the story to google street view - the story does not specify which direction the driver was going, but that can be correlated from the location of the body and the story
http://goo.gl/YaW0
http://goo.gl/PZlA

Now if the truck was at the red light and was making a legal turn to the right then that means that the woman was jaywalking at a red light - completely unprotected.
Even if she was protected, the driver was already in the intersection thus giving him the right of way. Just because the person is on the street does not give them the right of way, they must obey the same rules as vehicles. You yield to vehicles that are in an intersection just as you yield to pedestrians. The only difference is that you allow them to cross before you turn IF you are both in the right of way at the same time AND you yield the right of way to them if they were already in the street and the light turns red on them.

Hmm, it shortens http://goo.gl/ to http://googleurlshortener.tk./ I think I broke it.

Oddly, it turns http://tweak.tk/ into http://e80qk.tk./ My brain hurts.