New Company Seeks to Bring Semantic Context To Numbers 264
A new company, True#, is seeking to bring extensive semantic context to numbers to give them obvious meanings just as certain words have obvious meanings to most readers. "Most of us can probably recognize 3.14159 and the conceptual baggage it carries, but how many of us would recognize 58.44? (That's a mole of sodium chloride, in grams, for the curious.) And the response that would work for words — look it up — doesn't work so conveniently for numbers. Only one of the top-10 hits in Google refers to salt, and Bing fails entirely (though it does offer 'Women's Sexy Mini Skirts by VENUS'). Clearly, we haven't figured out how to make the Web work for numbers in the same way it does for words."
Web searches aren't THAT bad... (Score:5, Funny)
1337 returns EXACTLY what I expected.
Works for me (Score:3, Funny)
I get one return for NaCl on Bing and nothing about miniskirts.
Cue the conspiracy theorists.
When I search for infinity... (Score:5, Funny)
...it returns "number of years it will take before True# turns a profit."
I'm seriously confused how many companies will jump at this -- and why someone like Google won't just do it for free? Couldn't you use Google Base for something like this?
Wrong conclusion (Score:5, Funny)
Only one of the top-10 hits in Google refers to salt, and Bing fails entirely (though it does offer "Women's Sexy Mini Skirts by VENUS").
Bing seems far superior to my hormon^W^Wme.
Hitchhiker's Guide? (Score:5, Funny)
So, put in the (numerical) answer and it gives you the question?
Thank God Douglass Adams didn't know about this.
42 (Score:2, Funny)
Need I say more?
Is this a joke? (Score:2, Funny)
420 comes up correctly! :) (Score:4, Funny)
For the number 420, Wikipedia's Cannabis information page comes up #1 in both google and bing.
35484.32384 (Score:2, Funny)
3494.13
332
8494.354
2324.234
Hahaha, I kill me sometimes.
Get it? 332 ... 3494.13 -> 8494.354 ?
Man, that is too funny!
Note to self: patent the following numbers... (Score:5, Funny)
1. Eleventeen
2. 867-5309
3. 451
4. 1999
5. a gazillion
6. THIS MANY (holding up three fingers)
7. infinity minus one
8. approximately
9. 9/11 (may already be taken)
10. Top ten
Thank goodness my numbers are safe (Score:5, Funny)
When I searched "1234" on google and bing, the top results are about that Feist song. Thank goodness it doesn't mention anything about it being my root admin password and my luggage combination--hey! Where did my bag go? It was just here, and why is there a sudden spike in my internet tra#%^W&*s%!$AF{:
---[CONNECTION LOST]---
Re:Works for me (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe Bing learns from previous searches.
...by google!
Where? (Score:3, Funny)
The weight of a mole of sodium varies by location. In most of the universe the weight of anything is almost zero.
He's right, you know (Score:2, Funny)
Re:okey dokey (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is really stupid. (Score:1, Funny)
Why in the hell would I want to search for a number with no context? Who thinks that way?
TV Detectives investigating the death of a Chemistry Prof. would find this tool invaluable...
Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad... (Score:5, Funny)
> I did know about 69 ... but 42 ... It's kind of kinky.
You don't like thigh on shin action?
Re:INCORRECT USAGE (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure you've heard the one about the linguist who was walking across campus with his girlfriend when they saw six descriptivists beating up a prescriptivist. She turned to him in horror and asked, "Aren't you going to help?"
"No," he replied, "I think six is enough."
Re:Reverse Engineering and Better Search (Score:1, Funny)
I have had this need when reverse engineering and debugging algorithms in software. There are magic numbers in the formulas and I have no idea what they mean.
Oh, yes. My .vimrc contains the constant 2551443 -- ask Google for it. Then, ask Google for "2551443 seconds".
Google had my number (Score:3, Funny)
2635622779696759818963956926355997625653382829357706805515232 / 838944787028681613144502774660896402692975681322322888764935
I have lots of better ones. But they'd probably break Slashdot to post them.
Re:Sig Figs (Score:5, Funny)
Wolphram Alpha calls it 58.4
so much for significant figures.
You only get significant figures from significant search engines.
Re:Note to self: patent the following numbers... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad... (Score:4, Funny)
xkcd numerical sex positions [xkcd.com].
Re:Reverse Engineering and Better Search (Score:3, Funny)
I have had this need when reverse engineering and debugging algorithms in software. There are magic numbers in the formulas and I have no idea what they mean.
Additionally, if something like this was rolled into a more generalized search algorithm, it could be used the other way around. Google could know, for example, that a paper with the number 58.44 a lot of times is probably about NaCl even if it is not mentioned explicitly.
Sorry, you're out of luck there. Magic numbers work because they're actually magical. Sorry to burst your bubble if you still believe in things like algorithms and the tooth fairy.
Did you honestly believe that computers worked by interpreting a series of logical instructions input by a mortal human being? Trust me. When you're ready to understand you won't need to search.