I'd classify myself as much a science nerd as computer nerd (if not more). And I know plenty of physicists who you could at a stretch call nuclear (mostly more along the lines of quantum) who read it frequently.
Also I was under the impression getting 233 from a thorium reactor was rather old news, and the gamma emissions would ruin your day if you actually tried to build a bomb with it.

No man, Java is the new COBOL, there's gunna be people maintaining and expanding on all the enterprisey java stuff for centuries.

I suppose my post was somewhat poorly worded.
To expand/try again somewhat, uhm

First a few things that aren't maths, or that maths is not.
For one, it does not generate entirely new axioms/rules. The results often seem novel, but they are directly implied by the axioms -- a small set of things simply taken to be obvious New mathematics comes from greater insight into previous assumptions, elimination of redundant assumptions, or examination of assumptions that noone previously bothered with taking as true/false .
Another thing that maths isn't when done correctly is ambiguous. It should mean only one thing to anyone with the correct context. Two sufficiently capable mathematicians given equivalent axioms should come up with equivalent answers given the same question.

There is mathematics for dealing with vagueness and uncertainty; do not confuse this with ambiguity. Errors due to approximations can be quantified, and all sets of lower/upper bounds on answers should overlap even if different people are making different approximations. Some equations also cannot be solved (or approximated with known error) given our current knowledge.
There is also the whole field of applied mathematics (scientists, most statisticians, mathematicians who actually interact with real data etc do this) ambiguity is sometimes/often found here for various reasons (practicality, ambiguity of knowledge of what is being modelled etc) -- like anything dealing with the real world.
In short, properties of something that's maths:
The important/defining properties aren't altered by representation. Ie. it could be expressed in C++, Finnish, traditional Mathematics notation, some beads on a string, by sufficiently well defined interpretive dance, specially shaped toy blocks, or in a brain and still serve the same function.
It is not inductive (scientific/philosophical definition of inductive, not mathematical) in nature.
It is unambiguous, or is the direct application of something unambiguous.

I agree with your comment; although I don't see how what you said is relevant to what I said. GP was claiming that Maths was a product of logic (product of a way of reasoning), in response I claimed that logic was a subset of maths (ie. maths is a way of reasoning, one that encompasses the way of reasoing GP claimed maths was a product of).

Continuing with your line of discussion. There is some discussion of alternate logic in quantum physics. Usually largely in the realm of science philosophy/interpretation, but the notion of 'the particle is here (or the cat is alive if you prefer)' can be thought of as neither completely true nor completely false in some interpretations -- ie. that the superposition represents neither your confidence in your measure or reality, nor the probable end result of some unknown event(s), but that the truth of the particle being at point a is at 2/3 of the way from false to true, and the truth of the particle being at point b is 1/3 of the way from being false to true.

There are other non-traditional logics (a simple one is a three valued true, false, unknown) which see application as well as less used (in science/engineering at least) paraconsistent logics which are often studied in philosophy.

If the injectors can handle both oil and water, and you have a pressure release valve in your hot oil reservoir, I see no reason why partial mixing would be a problem. You would get a build up of grease and such, but engines do that anyway.

Recognising, identifying and using patterns is mathematics. By collecting things which demonstrate the fibbonaci sequence together your Kenyan kid is doing mathematics even if he is not very good at formally structuring his thoughts using the conventions form academia.
Ambiguous communication (ie. communcation can mean more than one of the available things that aren't degenerate in the current circumstances) is merely bad communication.
Approximations, qualitative analysis and context dependant communication (one of the reasons you can't input into a CAS using traditional notation or just using the same LaTeX as you would for presentation) are common in mathematics. If you don't believe me, go study chaos for a few years. There are plenty of other examples (such as statistics given in the rather hard to follow anon post above).
You don't often see the exact words you mentioned, or communication that depends that heavily on intuition and state of the recipient because it is (usually) too ambiguous to be useful.
Again, if you ask anyone that practices the art, they will be more inclined to say that mathematics is the process of organising, identifying, structuring etc. patterns than the current set of conventions and results we have. Communicating a precise thought unambiguously is important for this; this is why we use the languages/notations/etc that we do.

Then what do you refer to the study of, and manipulation of logical systems including non-tradition (ie. meta-consistent logic). It is sometimes done by those who identify as philosophers, but I think you'll find that the majority of such work is done by people who identify as mathematicians and call it mathematics.
Math (according to anyone I know who has studied it deeply at least) is the thought process. The models and tools which are then applied to the real world are more often referred to as results

To my mind this belies a misunderstanding of what mathematics is.
It does not depend on any one representation, or encoding. It encompasses any (non-ambiguous) expression of rules and relationships between things (be they real, ideals based on reality, or entirely fictional mental entities), or non-ambiguous measurements, and more importantly, the process of generating, manipulating, and understanding said relationships.
I agree wholeheartedly that our current encoding/names/expressions/forms/system of categorizing such things is completely human and largely incidental, but you could probably grab any decent mathematician and put her in an environment with completely different conventions without her having much trouble.

Hi rikxik,
How do I do that? I'm not sure.

PS. Still coming to the orgy on friday?

Aliens use cheap noname chinese laptops?