Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts

Monday, January 25, 2010

Tweeting...From...Space!

First, human kind gazed into space.

Then, human kind sent objects into space.

Then, human kind sent itself into space.

Then, human kind landed on another world.

And now...

Human kind can tweet....from space!

Yes, despite the lack of air that might be required for more traditional tweeting, extra-terrestrial electronic tweeting is alive and well! Just ask astronaut TJ Creamer, who thanks to him, you can follow someone not on planet Earth.

As a self described geek, this combines at least two of my various obsessions: The Internet and Space. Col. Creamer's older posts appear to him working on getting it working: presumably tweeting by a proxy on earth. But now the middle man can be cut out, at least mostly so. One site suggests that the tweeting (and web access in general) is actually done via taking control of a computer on the ground, ala remote desktop.

Nevertheless, allowing astronauts to have internet access on the ISS can only help to further and promote space travel. With access to resources like Twitter, Facebook, even VOIP products, hopefully astronauts won't feel quite so isolated, which may encourage more travel. Let's just hope they don't get any viruses. But then again, they should probably be using Linux anyway :).

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Solution to the "Missing Square Problem"

Solution of the Missing Square Problem
Jason D.

Have you ever seen this "puzzle" floating around before?

This problem appears to make no sense what so ever…two triangles of apparently equal dimensions, consisting of smaller segments, appear to cover less area when rearranged differently...where did the missing block go?

Go ahead and try it for yourself (I used cut outs from graph paper as a starting point). Then come back and see if your solution agrees with mine!

The solution:

First, lets examine the larger rectangles. Each covers and area of (13 * 5)/2, or 32.5 square units.

The areas of the individual segements:

Blue: (2*5)/2 = 5 square units
Green: 8 square units
Yellow: 7 square units
Red: (3*8)/2 = 12 square units.

The sum? 32 square units. *GASP* neither triangle corresponds to the sum area of the segments.

In the top triangle, the area subtract the area of the yellow and green segments gives us 17.5 square units.

In the bottom triangle, this identical calculation yields 16.5 square units.

The different of course being *drum roll* one square unit. But WAIT! There's more.


The ratio of the full triangle is 13:5, the blue 5:2 and the red 8:3. These are NOT equivalent ratios.

We can look to our good friend Pythagoras:

Given the hypotenuse of each triangle is the square root of the sum of the other two sides squared, the hypotenuse of each triangle is:

Full Triangle: √194

Red: √73
Blue: √29

If this “triangle” is all that it seems, the hypotenuse of the red and blue triangle would equal that of the full triangle.

√73 = 8.5440037453175311678716483262397
+ √29 = 5.3851648071345040312507104915403
= 13.92916855245203519912235881778

√194 = 13.928388277184119338467738928513


So close! But the value is actually off by .00078027526791586065461988926674228

Lets look closely at the slopes.
Full Triangle : 5/13 = 0.38461538461538461538461538461538
Red Triangle : 3/8 = 0.375
Blue Triangle: 2/5 = 0.4

If this were what it looked like, then all the slopes would be equal. However, The blue triangle is steeper then the red, which is not as steep as the full triangle. This means that the hypotenuse formed by the two smaller triangles is not straight, and thus “slopes in” on one triangle and “slopes out” on the other.

The hypotenuse’s have different slopes, as the angles are different.

For n >= 5, this discrepancy is basically unnoticeable. But for n=4, n=3, you can see it quite clearly.

From a different perspective:


Still not convinced?

Pretty nifty. But wait just a darn tootin' minute…look at those numbers… 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13

Look familiar?


So if you’re still wondering where the missing block went, Fibonacci ate it.

The End.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Things that aren't standardized but should be

Hello everyone! Something a tad different today. Are you familiar with the International Organization for Standardization? Well, they're an organization responsible for publishing "standardizations" of various things which can be used internally for interoperability/communication purposes. For example the "ISO 7001" standard for public information signage defining a common set of symbols so people understand where certain facilities are even if they don't understand the language.

There are still many things not standardized and things that arguably shouldn't be.

I developed this list last summer for fun, things which have no standardization but, just maybe, should have some :). Enjoy! Note: most of the numbers have some connection to their "standards" but they might not be obvious at first ;).

ISO 0000 - Pronouciation of the word "ISO"
ISO 1337 - Short hand, alpha numeric language used in internet communication
ISO 1984 - Tetris
ISO 2063 - Warp Drive
ISO 7448 - Toilet Paper Quilt Patterns
ISO 6463 - Telekinesis
ISO 3141 - Pi
ISO 7399 - The Perfect Mate
ISO 77468 - Fingerprint
ISO 43278 - Love
ISO 98669 - Lust
ISO 12080 - Blood Pressure
ISO 666 - Evil
ISO 6663 - Length of time you may be left waiting
ISO 733 - Length of time to use the bathroom
ISO 2583 - Color of the sky
ISO 25324 - Smell of body odor
ISO 221 - Random Algorithm

What would you like to standardize? Let us know, and take care!