Slashdot Mirror

Don't forget the viscosity of plain old glass.

Apple are idiots and they have just not thought about the ramifications.

The USA owes China over a Trillion in federal bonds which is $1,000,000,000,000 by USA standards or UK $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to bail out the banking crisis and also fund the Iraq War. if you are stuck with getting your mind around the numbers this helps http://www.jimloy.com/math/billion.htm

If China calls in that debt and demands it in GOLD as they can do legally you will see a serious crisis and the currently economies around the world will seem like a Holiday (Vacation) and people will be fighting for food and you will not give a damn about your computer Apple/Mobile/Cellphone/Facebook/Twitter or /. (Tongue in cheek)

I think they should ask for maybe a quarter of it back just to get the ball rolling and see what happens as an experiment.

I like to think of it as 8.83 billion nanometers.

If anyone is interested, and doesn't know, it's called a quintillion.

I have one word to say to you and just one word: Galileo.

You might consider reading the article you linked. Galileo was closer to the mark than Aristotle but not fully correct. As it points out, a more massive object does accelerate more quickly in a vacuum. Outside of a vacuum, a larger object encounters more friction and accelerates more slowly. Mind you, both effects are infinitesimally small in terms of this experiment; as usual, BaG's point is worth a moment's thought but fails to apply to the issue at hand.

Besides that, there is also the problem of the greater weight of the camera causing it to fall faster than the lighter grains of sand. Ideally, you'd want to observe the sand in as stationary and synchronized a manner as possible. However, if the camera is moving relative to the sand, it would be difficult to monitor any particular clump of falling sand.

I have one word to say to you and just one word: Galileo.

Modern equal tempering was not even developed until about 70 years after J.S. Bach's death. In his Well-tempered Clavier he made use of 'well tempering', which was an older technology. He didn't develop that one either though. http://www.jimloy.com/physics/scale.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_temperament

No, it's wrong. Fortunately, blu3 b0y had no trouble spotting the mistake, which has that he stated the converse of what the statistics implied. Nothing to do with correlation and causation.

http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm

Just make sure you put enough fuel http://www.jimloy.com/math/metric.htm in before you send 'er up!

Wow...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion

How about this for proof.

or this if you don't believe wikipedia:

http://www.jimloy.com/math/billion.htm

9 billion 1000 million (1 milliard)

9 zero's... 1,000,000,000

Or if you still don't believe me:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LargeNumber.html

Now, your turn find me just 1 site that says 1,000,000 is a billion.

Or are you just a troll?

The article is technically correct.

Some of the moves can move two rings at once, so it depends on whether you count these as two moves or one.

There's a good discussion of this point for the 7-ring system here.

Cheers.

You can not be charged with breaking common law. It must be law in America in the US Code, state or local laws.

http://www.jimloy.com/issues/unwrittn.htm

Common law: England has no formal constitution. Their "constitution" is the accumulation of court cases down through history. Their law of the land is what judges say, in addition to the laws made by Parliament. The U.S.A. has inherited some of this "common law." And the courts have added much more. But the Court has decided that there are no common law crimes; the laws that you are accused of breaking must have been enacted by federal, state, or local legislative bodies.

Only using American billion! That equals to 1000 millions. But in the rest of the world billion is million million !
http://www.jimloy.com/math/billion.htm

statistics: D
marketing: B
pop culture: C
pre-algebra: C
research methods: F

I know I Hath Been Trolled, but four out of five means 80% of some large survey of dentists (damn those reduced fractions) think... that... chewing sugarless gum is better for your teeth than, well, we're not actually told what.

I don't know where you get that from, but I think this may be it:
German English Universal
Millionen Million 1,000,000
Milliarden Billion 1,000,000,000
Billionen Trillion 1,000,000,000,000
Billiarden Quadrillion 1,000,000,000,000,000
Trillionen Sextillion 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
and so on
see this page for more info.

Freecell, played with a real deck, will obviously not always be winnable; it's easy to construct an impossible deal. However, MS Freecell only allowed the choice of, what, 32768 games or so? Of those, only one was unwinnable: game 11982. If you failed to win any other game, it was purely your own incompetence :)

Great scientific pseudoachievements / pseudoadvances:

Phlogiston (a THEORY!! WOOO!)
http://www.jimloy.com/physics/phlogstn.htm

Montgolfier gas
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects2003/hetherin gton/final/montgolfier_bros.html

LSD as a mind control drug
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/lsd-mc-cia.htm
(to be differentiated from drug addiction, which is certainly controlling)

Frontal lobotomies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6379496&dopt=Abstract

Perpetual motion
http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/whythere.html

the 4^H5^H3 kingdom classification of organisms
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461530646/Classificat ion_of_Organisms.html

Either the Monty Hall problem which serves as a meditation on the idiocy of expertese, or the mayday mystery which isn't a logic problem, but is certainly a more amusing way to waste time than most puzzles.

That is what Gauss did. I don't know if I'd call it a trick, but it certainly does require some insight.

I've played EQ for four years, played StarWars Galaxies for a year and a half, and played EQ2 beta.

WoW has a major advantage over all of the above games because of one thing. Blizzard understands math and statistics. Blizzard has mastered the RTS genre which requires a very high compentency of math. You cannot balance 3+ diverse teams in a RTS game without a solid understanding of statistics, non-transitive statistics, and stong skills in mathematics.

In WoW, every aspect of character ablities and spells have the Blizzard touch. They just feel right. They don't feel overpowered or underpowered. The enemies that you face are perfectly balanced for their level. Unlike EQ or SWG where you could easily run into a lower level enemy that would completely wipe the floor with you.

Other game makers seem to play darts with their games. Try something random, see if it works and tweak it if needed. Blizzard obviously has a very strong mathematical foundation for their game. There's nothing complex. The formulas just work and the game just feels right.

This alone is why I think WoW has a very bright future.

There are mirrors left on the moon by the Apollo 11 astronauts that were put there to be able to measure the distance to the moon by laser. It's mentioned here for example. But the conspiracy theorists won't listen to that...

Presumably molecules leap Planck distances to get from one point to another though, right?

Your definition could use some precision, I think.

Unless methane ice is much more dense than water ice, hail would fall much more slowly.

If a frozen methane ball and a ice ball were release at the same time from the same height in the atmosphere wouldnt they hit the surface of the planet simultaneously? Hasn't Galileo proven this already?

The idea of a living creature not being subject to entropy because it may not be "closed" by some narrow definition seems ludicrous to me.

The square root of any integer that is not a perfect square is irrational. View Addenum two of this for details.

Simon.

Good grief, dont you people know how to use a search engine to do a little research before you post?

Freemars - Gravitational interaction (tides on the Earth caused by the Moon) transfers kinetic energy from Earth to the Moon, slowing Earth's rotation and raising the Moon's orbit, currently at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.

another page

and another

and another

Unfortunately, the Most Pleasing Rectangle poll refutes your assertion.

Is glass liquid or solid? says:
There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?"...
...glass is a supercooled liquid... is also a popualar belief...
more of this also here another page

I personal think of it as a supercooled liquid. Just think about how glass is blown into its shape.

I'm posting as anonymous coward so that I can say: mine was 1470

No, you're posting AC because you're an asshole, but at least you know it. I'm posting AC so I can say my score was was ... well, it was higher than yours, and not all that long ago, but there were plenty of kids in my class who scored lower, even though I considered them to be smarter than me.

Stories of Einstein flunking math may be apocryphal, but he was certainly not a straight-A student. If test scores are as valuable as you believe, then the average person's intelligence is on par with Einstein's.

Here is a great page explaining chaos theroy. My favortie part is this:

Butterfly (A) flaps wings (B), distracting archer (C) who misses target (D) and shoots bull (E) who charges through fence (F) striking automobile (G) of Ambassador from Zukistan (backward nation with 1/7 of world's nuclear weapons), causing rear-view mirror (H) to break, giving Zukistan (I) seven years bad luck (J). Zukistan blames the USA (K), and declares war (L). Massive thermonuclear exchange (M) destroys civilization (N) and causes nuclear winter (O).

We also have the inverse butterfly effect: Nuclear winter (O) kills butterfly (A).

Also (back on topic) the page explains why the weather is so difficult to predict.

Huh? A 600-pound man will fall at just the same rate as a 1-ounce marble. Perhaps the acceleration was just turned up too much. :)

IPv6 will increase the supply of addresses from 4 billion today to a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number," says Cody Christman

Well let's take a look. IPv6 looks like this:

2001:0418:000C:0003:0000:CF00:C0A8:2E2E

So the highest number is 16^32, right? Which is roughly 3.4028 x 10^38.

Which is a little over 340 undecillion. Want it exact? It's 340 undecillion, 282 decillion, 366 nonillion, 920 octillion, 938 septillion, 463 sextillion, 463 quintillion, 374 quadrillion, 607 trillion, 431 billion, 768 million, 211 thousand, 456.

Plenty for everybody!

Check out more names of big numbers.
.

Here is a list of names for big numbers

You guys and your fancy software, and newfangled electronic contraptions. He is obviously looking for a binary abacus! http://www.jimloy.com/arith/abacus.htm