Slashdot Mirror
Tattoos For the Math and Science Geek?
An anonymous reader writes "I've been thinking of getting a sleeve of math and science tattoos for quite a while now. With the money saved up, the only question remaining is, what equations/ideas should I get? I know for certain that I'm going to include some of Maxwell's equations, and definitely Ohm's Law. So, if you were going to put a tribute to the great math and science minds on your body forever, which ones would you choose?"
Think twice. Do you *really* think this will be so important to you forever?
0=e^(i*pi)+1
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
If you don't know what you want then just wait until you do. One of the worst things you can do for a tattoo is ask what other people think you should get. You'll end up with something that they want and it may be cool now but years down the road it won't mean anything to you.
Tattoo's are suppose to be for life. If it's something that you foresee down the road that you'll not be interested in and go "why did I ever do that, ugh that's so yesterday" it wasn't a very good idea.
-- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
The coolest math tattoo you could get would be nothing at all. Just hold up your arm and say "it's the empty set" and have them marvel at your coolness.
Seriously, tattoos are lame. Resist the urge. It's going to be an ugly green smear you will regrat.
Tattoos hurt, they endanger your health, they are expensive, and most of all they are superficial. AKA they are for looks only.
Gee... At one time only drunk sailors thought this was a good idea and now you want to show how geeky you are with them?
Might I suggest Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica the full text of course.
Bazinga!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Think of how dignified those tattoos will look when you age and your whole body looks like Reagan's neck. Do you really want to explain to your grandkids why you thought a math equation or Mighty Mouse or a kanji character that means "desk" was something that held enough meaning that it required you to permanently scar your body with it?
This applies to everyone who resolves to get a tattoo before deciding what it is of, btw.
But then again, I'm an old coot that never got the tattoo thing.
Are just a few ways that you could use that money to make a difference in science that will help others. When you die your tattoo will eventually rot away with the rest of your body. But if you sponsored something that helped science or math progress, people would know of you for some time.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Don't mod me for flamebait but I think that really looks bad. Tattoos rarely look good in their prime, and always end up faded and smudged. They don't make you look tough or interesting, just trashy.
dumbkopf! F=mA is obviously a knuckle tattoo!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This questions was actually Slashdot-worthy? Ya know, unlike a certain other board, Slashdot actually was good at some point in the past... But to answer the last question I'll ever answer here: tattoos are meant to be personal. If you have to ask someone else if/what you should get permanenly marked on your skin, you should probably not be considering getting a tattoo at all. Operating under the assumption that you'll go ahead with it, are there mathematical formulas and/or symbols that actually mean something to you on an emotional level? Those are what you should get. Seriously, though, don't take any answers from here. If you do, you'll be just like every other tattooed hipster douchebag trying to be socially ironic: permanently stamped with FAIL.
"You know you're narcissistic when you quote yourself in your sigs." -- PRoPAiN!
Don't get any tattoos. I can only name 2 people that I know that don't have something...
The older I get, the older that the "hip" crowd gets, and it just looks plain pathetic to be 30+ and have all these tattoos... Just think how bad the population is going to look 20 years from now - you'll have all these 40 yr olds that have way too much "ink" and you'll have none. I can't wait to be one of the very very few people who can say "I didn't get a tattoo because I wanted to be unique" at my 20 yr high school reunion.
Well, it's thousands of years old. At the moment, I would agree, it is a bit of a fad. But, again, in and of themselves, tattoos aren't the problem, it's bad choices on what to get, and where to get it. Admittedly, it's a lot more prevalent.
I actually understand what you're saying, I just don't understand the bile -- it's not like it has anything to do with you. Yes, I see kids getting their neck done, or getting the big ear-lobe thing, and I worry that in a few years those are going to be career-limiters. Because, even as someone involved with tattoo culture, there's certain things I am aware of will give the average person the willies.
When I show up in a suit, you don't see any ink. My eyebrow piercing is long gone, and nobody seems to even notice my earrings anymore. By choice, I don't have anything more extreme that is visible to anybody unless I want it to be.
Well, then 40% of Gen-X is about to look REAL dated. Probably a higher percentage of Gen-Next is well on their way to getting ink. And, shockingly, an increasing amount of boomers are getting inked.
Hell, I know school teachers with tattoos. Typically discrete things that would never actually be shown at school.
You're over-generalizing to all of the "in your face" (literally and figuratively) stuff that people get done, and extrapolating that everybody who has ever gotten a tattoo. Why you're venting this much spleen at the concept of tattoo is hard to guess.
Seriously, it's not your damned lawn, grandpa. Get over it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It really depends on the tattoo, and how it was intended to look. Other factors include how the person takes care of themselves. A lot of people don't consider, "how will this look in 30 years." The same goes for body piercings. How will it all look when you're collecting your kids from school, when your grandkids are born, or when you're 90+ years old in a nursing home. Likewise, a sleeve (like the article asks) it may seem like a great idea, until you get a job somewhere in the Southern US, at a company with a strict policy about visible tattoos.
I've known folks who had needed to wear long sleeves year round, because they loved the idea of getting a tattoo that everyone would see and appreciate, a decade before. It's all fun and games until it's 110+ degrees outside, and you wish you could toss off the shirt before getting into the oven previously known as "your car", except the office "no visible tattoo" policy extends to everywhere "office" including the parking lot and anywhere visible from the parking lot.
That's not to say don't get one. Just consider what the future results could be. Folks do all kinds of crazy things to themselves. There are a whole bunch of body modifications that can be (and are) done. Is a face tattoo, or even math equations from your ears to your fingertips really the best way to express yourself?
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
The "no visible tattoo" policy is the antithesis of the 1st Amendment. Stop giving corporations more power than the government has.
Or the "no visible tattoo" policy is the heart of the 1st Amendment. Stop giving the government more power than it should have. I think the only people that could win a "no visible tatto" lawsuit would be survivors of the holocaust.
The "no visible tattoo" policy is the antithesis of the 1st Amendment.
Please people, read the first amendment and try to understand it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It starts - and pay attention - "Congress shall make no law".
Do you see anywhere that Congress has made a law that says visible tattoos are bad?
This is a corporate policy. If you are hired, they are welcoming you in the door onto their property - on their terms. If they say you have to wear purple underwear to work here, guess what? YOU DO.
Employment is optional. Nobody has to give you a job. If they don't like your tattoos they don't have to hire you. It is really as simple as that. You have to do what the boss says - it's a job. It is not a right.
So back OT, to the guy who wants a sleeve of math equations, my advice would be DON'T. It's fun, it's nerdy, I can see the appeal. But you are limiting your options.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Here is my rule for tattoos: Select the exact design and location you want to have. If you still want that exact design and location in ten years, then get it. Otherwise, or if you change the tattoo or its location even in some minute point within those ten years, the clock starts over.
They don't make you look tough or interesting, just trashy.
To you.
I actually think it looks pretty nice. An abstract, pleasant-looking pattern, without going all stereotypically tribal.
As an aside, they aren't supposed to make you "look tough or interesting". They're supposed to be an outward expression of personal values through art. If you don't like that, I suggest staying away from music, books, and other artforms, as apparently that's not your thing.
By the gods, I wish that I had modpoints today. Protip: Don't argue against tattoos to the tattoo'd. They are maniacally pro-ink (and they MUST be! They'll be inked for the rest of their lives!). As the saying goes: If you have no tattoos, don't get any tattoos. If you HAVE tattoos, get MORE tattoos. It used to be that tattoos and body modifications were mostly used as a mechanism to show membership in a particular group. Nowadays, it seems that people get ink to show that they are a member of the "people who have ink" group. Not sure what to make of that, tempted to think "fad", just as you stated. I'm sure I'll be flamed for this, just like you were. I was a US Marine (am, I suppose. Once/Always, etc.) and I saw more young marines getting inked than NOT getting inked. They wanted to show that they were part of a group, that they belonged. I managed to avoid getting inked back then, and I figure if I didn't get inked in the Marines, then I might as well skip it going forward. I'm not against a tasteful tattoo on a man, think tattoos on women are gross, and think that all of the "people who judge me based on my tattoos are wrong." crowd are naive. People judge me based on my face and appearance all day long. As a people, we look at a face and body and make a snap decision about that person. It is how we've evolved to survive. and to be honest, I know that the in-your-face tattoo crowd are making snap judgements about my face when they see it, too.
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
Being discharged from a company for being a bigot is a consequence of your speech.
Having to wear long sleeves at work is elimination of your right to speak, no matter what you have to say.
Being discharged from a company for [saying something] is a consequence of your speech.
Being discharged from a company for [displaying something] is a consequence of your "speech".
Having to wear long sleeves at work is good sense if displaying tattoos get you discharged.