Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wolfram Alpha Number-Crunches the Super Bowl

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the survey-says dept.

Technology 67

Nerval's Lobster writes "Whatever your actual feelings about football and this weekend's Super Bowl, you have to admire Wolfram Alpha's willingness to crunch any dataset and see what it can find. The self-billed 'computational knowledge engine' has analyzed the historical data for both teams involved in this Sunday's Super Bowl XLVII. Its conclusion? The San Francisco 49ers and Baltimore Ravens are 'annoyingly similar' when it comes to numbers, although some players stand out as potential game changers — if the math plays out right."

cancel ×

67 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Rugby for doped sissies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42777415)

That's what it is, no need to crunch numbers.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42777447)

Some of them have imaginary friends, some in the sky some on the internet.

It's pathetic.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (1, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777639)

your not that far off the mark, not with mandatory 120 second time outs every 5 minutes for commercials

seriously, when the commercials are worth more than the very boring game

American football needs three very minor changes.

No more field breaks for commercials,
The three point field goal should be worth 2 points.
The 2 point conversion should be worth at least 4 points, I like the score doubling 6 myself.

Strategically if your in your 4th down and have more than 1 yard to go you kick the ball currently. These guys play so conservatively it is depressing.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (4, Funny)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777705)

Have you actually seen rugby? Its like American football minus all the interruptions, advertising and Tebowing. And when you get tackled you don't bounce off the shoulder pads.

Seriously I know that American TV is paid for by advertising, but its seriously unwatchable. After 30 minutes my brain was so addled by constant interruptions that I watched QTV and actually wanted to buy something, anything.

No wonder America has a drug and violence problem - its caused by constant TV interruptions that eventually cause your brain to .... hey, a squirrel!

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (2)

peragrin (659227) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777831)

No America' ADHD problem is caused by TV that stops every 5 minutes to show 2 minutes of hey a squirrel driving a car.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42778627)

I have seen Rugby. I went to the University of Stellenbosch for a semester. The US Maties won the national Championship in South Africa.
I also went to Texas Tech University in Lubbock Texas. The TTU RedRaiders never were good enough to win the national title, but they were good at the time.

Not a SINGLE rugby player on the Maties could have made the squad at Texas Tech. The Red Raiders had a tight end that was 260 pounds that was faster than ANYONE (even the speedy wings) on the rugby team.

The physical talent in terms of speed & strength is a million times better in American football, obviously not in endurance though.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42782703)

but that's the point - you have to sacrifice *a lot* for endurance and versatility on the field. If all you do is sprint for 5 seconds every 3 minutes your training is tailored for that specific goal but you wont be as good at running and tackling and running and tackling for 5 minutes straight like in rugby, where there are very few interruptions. Assuming 1-10 stats, it's desirable to have a bunch of 8s and 9s in rugby, while at the same time in football it's better to have one or two 10s.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42778669)

I'm American, but I spent a month in Germany on the foreign exchange program several years back. I didn't watch much TV, but from what I remember, there were still commercials--just much fewer breaks, with a long set of commercials after the show (or before the next one, if you prefer). It was pretty damned nice, actually, for obvious reasons. Of course, this made it easier to not watch commercials, which is why they will never do something similar here.

I haven't actually had to watch commercials in years. DVRs and Netflix have seen to that. Don't watch sports, either, so they can't even get me on live stuff.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785323)

Adult Swim does this and I wish other networks would follow suit. Even if its a 30 minute time slot they air the first half/quarter/third, break for a quick commercial block and then show the rest of the program uninterrupted. Then they show a 5+ minute commercial block until the next program airs. Its a perfect setup as it is no where near as obnoxious and I can easily tolerate the quick break. During the final break I can do something like get a drink, use bathroom etc.

Of course the advertisers would probably put the kibosh on such a practice because they know viewers will ignore the long block and do something else. That is why I watch TV shows off my DVR exclusively, I don't watch live TV.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (2)

phik (2368654) | about a year and a half ago | (#42778737)

I am reposting this as a non-AC:
I have seen Rugby. I went to the University of Stellenbosch for a semester. The US Maties won the national Championship in South Africa. I also went to Texas Tech University in Lubbock Texas. The TTU RedRaiders never were good enough to win the national title, but they were good at the time.
Not a SINGLE rugby player on the Maties could have made the squad at Texas Tech. The Red Raiders had a tight end that was 260 pounds that was faster than ANYONE (even the speedy wings) on the rugby team.
The physical talent in terms of speed & strength is a million times better in American football, obviously not in endurance though.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (2)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42782719)

reposting as well

but that's the point - you have to sacrifice *a lot* for endurance and versatility on the field. If all you do is sprint for 5 seconds every 3 minutes your training is tailored for that specific goal but you wont be as good at running and tackling and running and tackling for 5 minutes straight like in rugby, where there are very few interruptions. Assuming 1-10 stats, it's desirable to have a bunch of 8s and 9s in rugby, while at the same time in football it's better to have one or two 10s.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (1)

eek_the_kat (249620) | about a year and a half ago | (#42786767)

Americans don't want rugby. Rugby is there for the watching and we choose not to watch it. Why turn something into something else that has been rejected? Where's the logic? Football looks good on TV; it is a big reason it is such a part of American culture.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (2)

Alomex (148003) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777851)

I remember the old days when soccer was a slow and boring sport. Actually it still is, but now thanks to commercials and timeouts and all manner of other interruptions American Football, Baseball and Basketball are even more boring.

Presently the only fast action team sport available on TV is hockey.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42778015)

Ever watched hockey on American tv. Nothing better than getting a " and he takes he shot....eat at McDonald's" they just randomly inject commercials causing u to miss important moments

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (1)

Mastacheata87 (1759916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42786433)

Ever watched hockey on American tv. Nothing better than getting a " and he takes he shot....eat at McDonald's" they just randomly inject commercials causing u to miss important moments

Are we talking about outdoor hockey as it is played in the summer olympics or about the indoor ice skating version?

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (1)

chronokitsune3233 (2170390) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777993)

As an American, I must say that you're quite correct.

American football is not football. Hell, you don't even use your feet because you can't let the ball touch the field! The foot needs to be put back into football.

All it is otherwise is basketball, except the ball must travel according to the rules and tackling is allowed. Based on that alone, basketball is arguably more difficult than American football when you take into consideration that basketball requires you to dribble and run and know when to pass whereas American football only requires you to run and know when to pass. It's less safe, yet requires less thought, subconscious or otherwise, from the player. Oh well. Nobody ever claimed we Americans were intelligent.

Now rugby... That's some REAL football. ;-)

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42778631)

I'm going to have to ask you to move your communist/terrorist ass to somewhere else. American Football is America. Anyone who wants to understand America need just study football. Unlike most other sports, American Football needs a team of people with drastically different body types and abilities(even fat guys) who work together but are individually responsible for drastically different jobs(most aren't ever even supposed to touch to ball). It values militaristic strategic thinking and even has rules that accommodate frequent commercial breaks. It's a celebration of the American core values of diversity, individualism, war and capitalism. To top it off, even though only American teams can play in it, the Superbowl is called the World Championship. This is because we are so much better than the rest of the world that it would just be an embarrassment to them when there teams were slaughtered. We're just that magnanimous.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42778791)

Football, as apposed to Horseball (polo). I prefer the term Handegg Myself.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780213)

You do know that it is called football because it is not played on horseback?

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42782743)

how is that different from volleyball or handball?

Re:Rugby for doped sissies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780191)

I would respect your opinion but as I believe you are a unionist rather than a Leaguer I cannot.

Why? (4, Insightful)

Skiron (735617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777487)

Why do you yanks have to analyse everything? Just get on and play the bloody game.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42777631)

People frequently place bets on the outcome of the Super Bowl. I figure they want to maximize their own odds of winning.

Re:Why? (1)

ruggerboy (553525) | about a year and a half ago | (#42778591)

Having a good idea of the outcome ahead of time prepares us for disappointment, and leads to fewer futbol, er, football riots?

Re:Why? (2)

mutified (2792691) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779519)

I calculated you would say that.

Re:Why? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42786575)

Why do you yanks have to analyse everything? Just get on and play the bloody game.

Because people love to put money on the line and analyzing the data before hand lets them pretend to be informed gamblers?

Betting on sport is probably as old as sport itself, as is analyzing all the data to see who has the best odds.

Who cares? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42777501)

Between "The Move" (Ravens, from Cleveland) of one team, how the other team treated its quarterback (49ers, Smith) this year, and the fact that New Orleans gets to host the game following a season of punishments from the bounty scandal that helped them to their own Superbowl win... FUCK THEM ALL. Not watching.. not even the fucking commercials.

Re: Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42777559)

How exactly did the "bounty program" (which there was dubious evidence of) provide the saints any competitive advantage?

Re:Who cares? (5, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777587)

"FUCK THEM ALL. Not watching.. not even the fucking commercials."

Wait What? Fucking Commercials? has the FCC lifted the ban on copulation in commercials? I am SO watching the superbowl now!

Re:Who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42777613)

I heard this year's GoDaddy superbowl commercial shows full penetration.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42777735)

plus the commercials are usually 30 seconds long, which is about all the time i need.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42778011)

I am SO watching the superbowl now!

The commercial will arrive in your email shortly.

I use a different method (2)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777527)

I personally use Chef Johns analysis of throwing chicken wing bones. It's never failed.

contradiction of analysis (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777565)

" a stray gust of wind at a crucial moment—could alter the dynamics"...in the NO SuperDome?

Re:contradiction of analysis (2)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777623)

Unless it's a sealed homogeneous environment, yes. Pretty sure they've got some ventilation, which means moving air.

Algorithm requires a specific hook (3, Interesting)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777657)

did they remember to include the "any given Sunday" function in their algorithm? :-)

BTW, What you *should* be watching today is http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/puppy-bowl [discovery.com]

Betting lines (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777689)

Most of the betting lines I see have San Francisco by just a few points, which fits with WolframAlpha's analysis of a slight advantage to them.

Re:Betting lines (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777965)

Unfortunately (or fortunately) betting lines arent set based on the games likely outcome but instead are set based on public perception of the games likely outcome. The goal of the the betting line is to get equal amounts of money wagered on each team, and if successful the bookie walks away with 10% of the action because the winning wagers only get paid $10 on their $11 wager.

Re:Betting lines (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42778105)

I know that's how bookies work, but I figured putting real money on the line would help ensure accuracy because it would help people take it seriously, that plus a large sample size.
Sports betting does have some skill in trying to figure out if the bookies/betting public are wrong, as opposed to some other forms of gambling being complete chance, but I don't want to put too much stock in trying to beat the system. Ironically, trying to beat the system could just encourage gambling, exactly what the system wants.

Re:Betting lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42778779)

Surely you mean they get paid $21. Nobody would ever bet if "winning" was a guaranteed net loss.

Re:Betting lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780079)

Surely you mean they get paid $21. Nobody would ever bet if "winning" was a guaranteed net loss.

When you bet $10 with a friend, do you hand him $10 and later if you win the wager he hands you $20?

Re:Betting lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780263)

You throw $11 into the pool someone takes the opposite side and throws in their $11. Winner receives $21 of the $22 bookmakers keeps $1 profit.

Re:Betting lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785599)

GP likely means they get paid $10 *net*. Of course, you knew this to be able to calculate the $21 gross.

I'm not a member of the hive on this one (3, Interesting)

justthinkit (954982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777899)

I don't like football. I love it.

Played it for just shy of 50 years...so far. Coached it, sideline ref'd it. Took up punting as a solo/zen hobby. You name it, I love it.

I played soccer when young (English parents), but it is not one-tenth of the game football is.

I played more tennis, from age 6 to 16, than any other sport and than anyone I knew. I got good at it and am still good at it. I've take time off work to watch the majors. And it is not one-fifth of the game football is.

I suck at golf so nuff said.

It is funny to hear people praising rugby instead of football. Talk about whistle-prone. Rugby has its moments, as does Aussie rules football. But they are not one-third of the game football is.

World cup soccer only comes once every four years. Same for the Olympics. Pity, or they might come close to American football

But there can be only one. Long live football. American football.

...a former Canuck who always hated the Canadian version -- the 3 downs forcing the game to be unbalanced toward passing, the ultra wide field that made the game hard to appreciate up close and the imperfect football -- try throwing one of each country's footballs and you'll see what I mean.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (2)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42777957)

World cup soccer only comes once every four years

What about the World Cup of American Football - once in how many years is it held?

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42778543)

That's the super bowl.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42781463)

That's the super bowl what?

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (4, Insightful)

Ogive17 (691899) | about a year and a half ago | (#42778281)

I enjoy watching American football, it's big at all levels where I live. However, one of your comments just doesn't make any sense.

It is funny to hear people praising rugby instead of football. Talk about whistle-prone. Rugby has its moments, as does Aussie rules football. But they are not one-third of the game football is

A typical American football play lasts 3-4 seconds followed by 30-40 seconds of nothing. While Rugby also has some downtime, you don't see frequent substitutions and the players play offense and defense. Even if the typically play goes on for only 3-4 seconds, the following down time usually is just another 3-4 seconds.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (2)

justthinkit (954982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42781445)

What doesn't make sense is the average rugby whistle. It is perhaps the most unintuitive sport there is. The average sports person has no idea what a "knock on" is, yet these stop the play far too frequently.

Brutality: The scrum is pretty savage, yet little is ever said about it. Such a rough game puts it out of reach for most. Football can be as well, but personally I only played tackle with my friends -- college intramurals were flag football, and I "coached" some K5ers in 2-hand touch.

Rugby has a lot of potential for greatness. Very exciting to see the "end" trying to break free. But there is the problem as well. You see the same basic things happening over and over -- kicks, scrums & tackles that look damaging, and attempted runs. Few passes, little strategy, and bandaged ears.

"Mommy, why do they bandage their ears?"
"Because they are not smart enough to use helmets, son."

Returning to whistles...

Each sport has a rhythm. Someone took a stopwatch to baseball and measured 9 minutes of true action in an entire 9-inning game. Basketball and hockey can have a minute or two of intense action. Soccer can have steady "action" with at least one or two players running, but I think lack of substantial action (by most players) is its biggest downfall. Football is "unique" when it comes to action -- lengthy delays between plays, for sure.

But what are you getting for your delay? You are getting one team reading the other team's defense, finding a weakness and exploiting it. You are getting maximum effort, thanks to the rest they just had. Soccer lacks this, so you get cheap stuff like players throwing the ball the wrong way, or holding on to it, so they can recover. And of course lining up 5 yards away on free kicks...only to be moved to 8 yards away.

I would be surprised if anyone on /. purely watches sports without doing something else at the same time. Delays in sports, or shows, are pretty meaningless to me...in fact I like predictable commercial breaks -- mute TV, get up and do 5 things, return to work.

One other huge plus of delays between plays -- instant replays and analysis. There was a time, 40 years ago anyway, when replays were few and far between -- we used to beg the TV to show them to us. Now we get 3 or 4 views of a play, slow motion, highlighting, and expert analysis.

What sport comes close to this level of analysis and coverage? The Olympics (and maybe golf). Yet the amount of effort to win a given Olympic sports varies hugely. Team sports like olympic hockey, for example, see them playing round robin with every other team -- maybe 20 hours of brutal play. In another sport you jump in the water ten times. Try googling "easiest olympic sport" -- all kinds of pages talking about this alone.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42783501)

You sure don't get soccer :)

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42778515)

How about, instead of listing a bunch of sports and saying football is better, you talk about football and say why it's so great? Without giving reasons you just sound like a fanboy, but if you'd listed some good things about football, that would have been a great post.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (1)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42778907)

When it comes to (arguably) inconsequential topics such as sports on an internet message board, a non scientific personal preference is a fine reason to say something is great. Maybe you won't win any arguments or convert people but its good that GP was modded up if only to let /.ers know that other users have opinions that may differ from their own and to give said opinions a once over every now and then.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779387)

Just like I'm in the VI camp, right? EMACS sucks, is that what you're saying?

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (1)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779745)

Yes. If you decode my post, the hidden message is that EMACS sucks. Seriously though, GP's post is different because I'm guessing VI/EMACS fans are both well represented here compared to football fans. And re-reading his post, there are several reasons to like football in there: hobby aspects of the kicking game, fewer fouls than in rugby, more frequent than the WC, better rules than the Canadian/Aussie version. I'll admit that sometimes even trolls inspire me to stop browsing the forum and take a deeper look at the subject at hand and I often learn something new. Making lemonade eh?

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779967)

Anyway, his post is fine. I was just giving him a suggesting that would make it great. Because I think he probably has some interesting things to say on the topic.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (1)

justthinkit (954982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42781197)

Ok, here are a few comments, right before kickoff, on why I like football more than other sports:

-1- A true team sport. Not sure any other sport comes close.

-2- The personal commitment required to play it well. I recall some golfer who never practiced in the off season, just tossed his clubs in the garage...yet he was a world class golfer. Hockey comes closest on this one -- nothing like losing teeth or getting gashed up yet coming back for the rest of the game to show your commitment level.

-3- Complexity: 40 odd players on a team, kickers & punters, receivers & tight ends, half backs and fullbacks, etc. etc. Soccer loses badly here -- basically a 3 position game. Baseball is maybe second worst (of the major sports). Basketball? Well just check out what they figure are the highlights each night -- Another dunk!!!1! Will you look at that! Hockey is more complex than it appears, and I love the game (fastest team sport of 'em all), but still there are just 4 unique positions.

-4- Unpredictability: "Any given Sunday". Soccer: hmmm, Messi (brilliant Messi) will score a goal or two. Basketball: it will be a close score at the end with _fouls_ determining who wins -- only sport where fouling benefits a team. Baseball: mildly unpredictable but face it, who really cares? Baseball has too many games, too many per week (and even day), for legions of fans to be fully vested in it. So we all watch the World Series and... Hockey is fairly unpredictable but then hockey lacks scoring, with the last decade or two seeing a swing to a more defensive style of play.

-5- Influence of a good coach. Basketball ranks up there on this one. But how many movies have been made about baseball coaches versus this recent one [imdb.com] that comes to mind.

-6- Intensity. Soccer player gets "injured" and gets carted off, drinks some Gatorade and then rejoins the game. No big deal. Baseball: no need to comment. Hockey can be super intense, at its best, but when all that intensity doesn't lead to a score (i.e. 95% of the time)...let down. Football players diving for passes, 350 pound guys running faster than you or I ever will, runners sprinting up to a 100 yards at a time.

-7- "Pass down" -- parent to child, that is. I think baseball has a lot to offer here. Football is just deeper, more intense, more meaningful.

Given more time I could probably list 4 or 5 more points. Game has started. AFK.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42781931)

Good reasons.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42782957)

soccer is predictable? 1 lucky shot + otherwise shitty effectiveness on both sides = you win. It's not like an all-star team lost a game ever because the opposing team scored a single goal with their only shot on goal and managed to stave off the steamroller by the skin of their teeth.

Soccer on average has much fewer scoring events and that means the flukes have statistically greater chance to skew the outcome of the game. Assuming touchdown = goal, football is like a soccer with tons of 5:3 results (hockey?), while the soccer itself is more like 2:1.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779335)

Football is good, ( I'm watching the superbowl game today), but beach volleyball, now there's a game to watch!

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780791)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs_zBT8pL7c

Canadian university football. Doesn't seem that hard to throw the ball.

Brilliant! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42778161)

Not. The teams are remarkably similar with a few standout players? That's his conclusion? No duh. And, this is relevant how?

If he made a prediction with a point spread and numbers of each player (running, passing, etc) that matched up to the final result (but, published beforehand), that would be newsworthy. This is a waste of time and bandwidth.

Ravens by 2 (1)

mutified (2792691) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779553)

We're a very scientific nation. At some point though you just gotta realize that so many people here like to gamble that understanding the odds makes for higher winnings. Imagine a bunch of nerds complaining about how a calculator is used.

What about the commercials? (1)

antdude (79039) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780235)

Let's analyze those. :P

or...maybe a power failure (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year and a half ago | (#42781907)

wooops!

spoiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42782715)

Baltimore will win.

And this (1)

sphazell (745128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42783095)

If Wolfram Alpha is suppose to be able to crunch the numbers to give you information. How come if you ask it for the worlds current population it gives you 6.79 billion and says this is a 2009 estimate. Why cant it work out a 2013 estimate?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?