I'd have personally thought the number used in the fast inverse square root (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

I'd have personally thought the number used in the fast inverse square root (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root) would qualify as a 'magic number', everything else is just a hardcoded value.