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.