An invention that could change the internet for ever
 

Anyone hear about this?

continues:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...r-1678109.html

Considering all the misinformation on the web, I'd be suspect of a single answer to any question.

How many people will read past that "straight answer"? And where is that straight answer coming from, a politically correct source? Sounds like the same as using Wikipedia as the definitive source. Color me skeptical. :eyebrow:

What is the answer? To life, the universe and everything?

i'v been working on this one a long time. the answer seems to lie somewhere between 41 and 43. i'l get back to you..

42, Of course.

But what is the question?

That's exactly the answer I'd expect from this system.

There isn't even a straight answer to the height of Everest. Do you measure from the rock, which is never exposed? or the top of the snow, which varies seasonally? Do you measure from sea level? What is that, anyway? Do you take the satellite measurements or the trigonometric measurements? Etc.

Sea level. 29,000 feet exactly. But the record books say 29,001 because they don't want the reader to think the figure is rounded.

From Tech Republic: Wolfram Alpha will complement not replace Google. There's a video.

Well, since I rarely get a straight answer from a real PERSON, I'm a bit skeptical of this newfangled gadget's ability to give me one.

I'm losing track ... is this thing supposed to be Colossus or Skynet?

Forunately, neither. Bonus points for remembering the Forbin Project, tho.

For some reason, I think about that movie more than I used to...

I remember what happened to the guy who tried to pull the plug.

But sea level varies, not only with lattitude, but also longitude with relation to the surrounding landmasses. (The East side of the Atlantic, eg is about two feet higher than the west side (or maybe its the other way) due to the spinning of the earth, even at the same lattitude.)

So the concept of "sea level" where Everest is is fuzzy, since there is no sea there. A hypothetical sea level would depend on surrounding landmasses, which can vary with our hypothetical sea.

You might resort to "mean global sea level" but then I ask, averaged over what period? Sea level is not stable and hasn't been for hundreds of thousands of years.

At best we might say "betweeen 8,840 and 8,850 meters above mean sea level averaged over the last 100 years as it would be applied to the location of Everest if said location was in the middle of an open ocean, which it isn't."

And use metric you bloody peasant. :p

ETA: but Why use sea level? Why not measure the distance from the centre of the Earth? (This would in fact give the "Highest Mountain" prize to some mountain in central America whose name I can neither find nor remember. Due to the oblate shape of the Earth, its peak is almost 2,000 meters further from the center of the Earth than Everest's is.)

Well, using that logic, the concept of mountain kind of breaks down. Since a mountain is basically created by colliding plates, I guess it would be fair to use some agreed upon height of the two contributing plates as a baseline. That may not address all the concerns but at least it allows for a comparison of different mountains.

Using the pure measure of the distance from the center of the earth would unduly penalize moutains further away from the equator that rose higher above their surrounding plates than equatorial counterparts which start from an already higher point.

Someone who pole vaults 21' (ok, three meters - happy now :-) in Ecuador hasn't really jumped higher than someone who pole vaults 21' in Moscow.

The highest point on the earth and the tallest mountain on earth could very well be two different places.

Well, if you're talking about the TALLEST mountain on earth, it's Kilamanjaro. It protrudes furthest from its surrounding plains. Everest is on a step stool.

Suppose Jeremiah is one fathom tall, and Nathaniel towers two cubits and a span, yet the former mounts a step-stool fully five nails in height, who are we to say which is nearer the sun?

Sea level is the stander for measuring mountains that is why it is used. It is an arbitrary standard, like all measurements, set so we may talk about such things.

As for the software itself...it seem interesting. Having straight valid data could prove very useful perhaps I could get rid of my CRC

Much as I really dig Eric Braeden (including remembering when he was working under his real name, Hans Gudegast. He was the head Kraut on The Rat Patrol), I always think of the books first.

Have you guys been playing with Wolfram/Alpha? It's pretty neat. First thing I used it for was some statistical comparative data that I had to look up the hard way last month... it answered my question instantly, and I didn't even have to do the calculations myself!

Damn, Wolfram/Alpha can be very handy, save a lot of time. :thumb2:

I found out I was born on Yom Kippur, too.

http://www96.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=A+nice+hat

A little off

I have not found a use for this thing yet.

From Flint's link
=--What is the location of Timbuktu?

It maps it on an extremely simple map, which is OK but really inferior to Google Maps. If you ask Google, the first result says "Timbuktu is widely used to describe a place extremely far away and regarded by many as a myth. In reality it's a city in Mali." Which is better information than W|A gave you. Google wins.

=--How many protons are in a hydrogen atom?

Both answer this question, but Google not only answers this question directly as its first result, it also links to the Wikipedia entry for Hydrogen, which is more useful. Google wins.

=--What was the average rainfall in Boston last year?

Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input. That's OK because the question is strange. The average per what? Maybe try the *total* rainfaul in Boston last year.

Related inputs to try:
* rainfall in Boston last year

OK, What was the rainfall in Boston last year?

It shows the location of Boston's primary weather station.

Google does no better on these questions, but has links where you could conceivably look for the information. It's a draw.

=--What is the 307th digit of Pi?

W|A gets this correct. Google's entries are all about the text at Flint's link. The second result criticizes W|A:

Heh heh. W|A wins, but Google's result is more interesting: it doesn't matter.

=--What does 80/20 vision look like?

Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input. Google doesn't display the vision, but links to text that explains the system of measuring vision, which is about as good a result as we'd expect at this time in history. Google wins.

So, for the five questions that the founder felt were interesting things that W|A could do better than Google, the final score is Google 3, W|A 1. And I was using the natural language queries which W|A is supposed to handle and Google is not.

Lastly, W|A's results are displayed not as regular text, but as graphical text that can't be easily cut and pasted. This makes it that much less useful. W|A will be relegated to pocket calculator status for the types of computations that are ideal for it: uniform and memorable, and Google will remain where we get all our real world questions answered.

Here's a more in depth discussion plus a link to a firefox add-on that integrates W|A with Google results:

Lifehacker post on W|A

And here's what CNET TV has on it.

BTW, ya'll realize "42" is from HGTTG. WA couldn't give you an original answer anymore than I can stifle a fart.

This is a really cool feature.