<p>
</p>
<p>o and im already taken so don't even bother asking</p>
<p>Wow. Catty much?</p>
<p>It was a good movie. Not particularly engaging in terms of MIT-related stuff, but still a good movie.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've said it before, but let me reiterate: No matter how hot you (think you) are, there is always going to be someone at MIT who is way out of your league.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lmao. </p>
<p>And Olo, I'm glad you're giving the crazy people some love too :P</p>
<p>
I love it when you say that. =)</p>
<p>Honestly, don't judge other people. There is no greater ugliness than that.</p>
<p>You know, if they had a parallel thread to this one, over on the Caltech forum, people there would be sticking to the "real" issues/questions:</p>
<p>The method mentioned in the (supposedly) senior math class IS normally called the Newton-RAPHSON method.
Was there anyone called Vladimir Stupnitzky from whom Cauchy "borrowed" ideas?
How good was that robot really? How long would it take you to build it?
And wasn't there more to the blackjack method than just counting and signalling?</p>
<p>I'm just sayin' . . .</p>
<p>A few years back I saw a documentary style film of 'Bringing Down the House' that was good and not Hollywoodized. I gave the dvd of it to s who has it at school now- you'll have to track him down if you want to see it. I'm sure it's way better than 21.</p>