demagogue on 29/6/2011 at 16:59
Tau is the only lepton that can decay into hadrons—the other leptons do not have the necessary mass.
PeeperStorm on 29/6/2011 at 17:21
So Tau has a hardon?
nicked on 29/6/2011 at 17:51
Warhammer eh? So what do you do to celebrate Tau day? Paint the Tau red?
Koki on 29/6/2011 at 18:20
Quote Posted by demagogue
Tau is the only lepton that can decay into hadrons—the other leptons do not have the necessary mass.
I don't believe in particles with mean lifetime shorter than 885.7 seconds
CCCToad on 29/6/2011 at 18:46
Quote Posted by Briareos H
This amounts to classifying problems either by their effects on systems with huge complexity or by a developer's inability to solve them.
That's obviously ridiculous (and I agree with the MIT professor thing), but I also get the feeling that it might get counter-productive when you start putting tags on problems you can't tackle.
"bug A triggers a random behaviour in app A and bug B is similar in app B so both are heisenbugs"
cool story bro.
Or, to take a tangent, when you start trying to "fix" problems that don't exist in the real world yet.
dexterward on 29/6/2011 at 19:38
Quote Posted by nicked
Warhammer eh? So what do you do to celebrate Tau day? Paint the Tau red?
That tau, while Chaos Marines like to torture some puns...
Martin Karne on 30/6/2011 at 00:21
Tau-nts wont be the same ever.
Besides all mathematics are rater illogical if they cannot give a solution in a handful of numbers after the comma, who needs so much precision even chemists stop somewhere shorter than 10 digits.
(
http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/False_precision)
Quote:
False precision
False precision occurs when numerical data is presented in a manner that implies better precision than is actually the case; since precision is a limit to accuracy, this often leads to overconfidence in the accuracy as well.
In science and engineering, convention dictates that unless a margin of error is explicitly stated, the number of significant figures used in the presentation of data should be limited by the precision of that data. Even outside these disciplines, there is a tendency to assume that all the non-zero digits of a number are meaningful; thus, providing excessive figures may lead the viewer to expect better precision than actually exists.
DDL on 30/6/2011 at 02:23
There's a huge difference between writing a decimal version of pi and writing a decimal version of "some measured value", though: the former is a known constant, and representational accuracy is largely unnecessary, since you could simply re-derive the value yourself (mind you, it's pretty pointless to write pi in decimal form anyway, for exactly the same reason), the latter on the other hand, is where representational accuracy comes into play: for measured values, your actual result is never going to be a 100% accurate value, as the measuring methodology is never 100% accurate (leading to wonderfully silly results like the ratio of "protein X binding to protein Y being 1:1.15335", which makes no biological sense whatsoever).
Er...but on rereading your post, I suspect I'm actually just talking for the sake of talking, because you're just making a joke. Ho hum.
Also, chemists get almost as far as 10 digits? Christ, in biochem you're lucky to get 3 significant figures at best. Generally you consider it a success if you're within "order of magnitude" range. :p
YcatX on 6/7/2011 at 21:34
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. My last job we HAD to duplicate bugs when redesigning the system because if we fixed it, the trends would have changed significantly and the result would have really pissed of the clients, like GE, Best Buy, Sears, etc. They were spending boat-loads of money for crunched survey data that wasn't exactly 'accurate'. I'd rather honestly flip burgers, than lie to clients and then constantly have to cover it up. SHEESH!
Smiling on 4/10/2011 at 12:25
load of shit
