Nope, never been to San Diego. And while America is producing things like Trump and thinking them "normal", I don't think I'll be going.
We have huge canyons, valleys, and hills
Canyons : sites of erosion at tihs time, destroying (after exposing) the rocks and any fossils they contain. Hills similarly are sites of erosion. Valleys : sometime erosion, sometimes deposition as they transport sediment down-valley to temporary or less-temporary storage on their way to the sea. but definitely the valleys are the best chances for finding sites of deposition.
I guarantee with more ground penetrating radar or other scanning techniques there are other samples waiting to be found.
GPR - I've only used GPR down to about 40ft below sediment surface, and we couldn't get a good enough reading to be sure which structures were inclined bedding or void. not the easiest of things to interpret, as you'll know from your own work.
"Other scanning techniques?" Such as?
Still, being able to detect structure down to 40ft below surface doesn't give you permission to dig there, or the funding for the dig. Or the personnel. All the joys of trying to do science in a word of constrained funding and a population who, on average, don't give a flying fuck.
Gobekli Tepe (thank you, Slashdot's non-Latin incompetence) is truly fascinating, but would only push the origin of "civilisation" back by 3 or 4 thousand years from early Egyptian and Mesopotamian cities (and since it's late at night, I can't remember the oldest of the Chinese or (Latin)American cities). A step back, but not exactly a surprising one.
But Gobekli Tepe does raise a real question. Where the fsck did the workforce who built it live while building it, and what did they eat? We may have an answer for Stonehenge (NB: "may") ; for Stonehenge's predecessors like Brodgar, we just don't know. People are looking, but... there is no guarantee that the evidence hasn't been ploughed up in the Dark Ages. And in the Roman era. And in the mid-Iron Age.
I was just trying to find some usabel bathymetry data for the San Diego area, and while I'm not exactly sure, at about the time of this site (accepting the dating ; I don't see any major holes in it), it was 10 to 20km in from the coast. More strictly, from the 100m isobath, as an estimate of the sealevel at 130kyr. (No, I haven't even looked for an isostatic curve for the area. Though posing the question does suggest where to start looking.)
A combination of art and science will eventually be able to produce completely convincing audio forgeries
"completely convincing" against what level of sceptical and detailed investigation?
(I'll admit that in contravention of my normal habits, I haven't RTFA, or even tried to find the origina source. But since I've got two hearing aids in as I type, and have never in my life understood why people waste thier time with music, I doubt there'd be any point in listening to any sounds in the report. I often can hardly recognise what I'm saying, let alone anyone else.)
The world of tricking politicians and press offices with Photoshopped images has been going on for... about 3 days fewer than Photoshop has existed. And the same practises happened in decades and centuries before then - not excluding my crude darkroom efforts for the rag mag (you remember - dark room full of trays of chemicals. NOT the software!) or Holbein and the infamous Mare of Flanders. And just as long, more skilled operatives have been detecting the fakes and exposing them. Having had to do some photo-interpretation for mapping, I've had to pay a bit closer attention to photographs than most people, and I know I'm not particularly skilled or experienced at it. I sometimes wonder how thick some of the people who get fooled by the worse forgeries can be.
So, these first - well, most-recent - efforts at voice synthesis are not particularly convincing. But they'll improve. And the people detecting the fakes will improve. It's what's called an "arms race".
To be honest, if you want network security then you want two layers of firewall, one using Western hardware and software and the other using hardware and software from non-Western sources.
Part of the criticism of the paper is that the excavation was time-pressured,
Which part of "salvage archaeology" do you misunderstand? Literally, the bulldozers are hovering over the site, wanting to get on with paying work.
impossible to reconstruct
Which part of "salvage archaeology" do you misunderstand? Literally, the bulldozers are hovering over the site, wanting to get on with paying work.
and also had to leave out a few things that would have helped answer some questions.
Which part of "salvage archaeology" do you misunderstand? Literally, the bulldozers are hovering over the site, wanting to get on with paying work.
You have a choice in salvage work. Either get the best results you can now, with the personnel and techniques you have, now, and keep the best records you can, now. Or you get nothing. Big. Fat.Zero.
(You might be able to extend "now" by court action, but while the landsharks are in the shark pool, you need to be nose-down bum-up in the trench because the suit could go either way.
Your other questions are covered in the paper. I don't need to answer them a second time. Get a copy and read it - neither is difficult, and Slashdot does like to claim an intellectually capable readership.
No, I think it's more likely that the single man scenario could have happened a thousand times - once every century - and left less evidence than the first breeding pair did in the two centuries after their arrival.
More practically, since it is certain that humans had made it from Africa to at least Indonesia by the time under discussion (a journey necessitating the use of some sort of watercraft for several steps of the journey), then it is not a huge leap to put a population of humans on the Korean/ Kamchatkan coast, living a hunting/ gathering/ fishing lifestyle, and to have them lose boats to a storm from the west on a regular basis (not enough to threaten the populations survival, just part of the regular attrition of death in fishing communities ; my Best Man's home town lost three generations of one family in one boat only about 30 years ago). The few boatmen who survived the ride along the pre-Aleutian chain, past the coastal glaciers of pre-Canada and pre-Cascadia... eventually might arrive at pre-California and choose to stop. "Here, we can repair, re-equip, collect stores, and figure out how the fuck to get back home." And leave no population behind, because they don't put their valuable women onto the dangerous boats until they're damned sure they know where they're going.
Up-thread some people mention the Vikings going across the North Atlantic, island hopping. They don't mention the well-attested history of pre-Viking voyages (e.g. the "St Brendan" legend) that probably indicate the distorted tails of the few storm-tossed fishermen who did finally make thir way back home... to start a legend, and to give their descendants the idea that there might be something worth going over the horizon for. Generations later, Erik Thorvaldsson and Ingolfr Arnarson knew damned well there was land "out there" when they set off to settle Greenland and Iceland respectively.
I've never believed that the only population who settled in the Americas were the ones who followed the mid-Canadian ice-free corridor. Not when the coastal route was also available. Unfortunately, archaeological evidence for the coastal route is typically at an elevation of -50 to -100m, making it challenging to identify and dig sites. In that context, this is a very interesting report. Even if I do have doubts about the final numbers for the dating.
IF you accept the dating (see my posts up-thread - I'm by no means convinced by the dating, but need to read the other dozen pages of published material as well as the main paper), then this puts ONE or more H.sapiens (or close relative) in California 130kyr ago. That does not mean a breeding population. That could be one ship-wrecked (is "raft-wrecked" a word?) storm-tossed East Asian who arrived with a fish hook and is starting to re-build his tool kit. This could have happened thousands of times without a breeding population being established.
Cutting the meat off bone leaves distinctive "tool marks" - either of teeth/ claws or of the implements used by human(s) to "butcher" the carcass.
The bones did not show butchery marks (RTFP, read my link up-thread), so most likely were defleshed by non-humans before the humans "processed" the bones (for marrow, or tool-making material?). That could have been just a few days after the mammoth was killed.
Are you going to try to chase a pack of sabre-tooth tigers away from their kill?
Another person who hasn't read the fucking paper. Hint : before typing, read the fucking paper and see if they have answered your questions before you asked them. It's not difficult.
More samples from the *same* source however will reduce the error margins
The site was destroyed in some construction project. Before 1995.
There will be no new samples from this site ever. The site does not exist any more. That is why the field is called "salvage" archaeology. Whatever you get (including records) is all there will ever be.
I have to read the paper's dozen pages of SI (supplementary information), tonight, and follow those references, but since I know of U-Th series dating going back decades, I suspect that the technique of looking at diffusion profiles of U and the Th products of those is the new bit here. The last U-Th paper I read closely was about 5 years ago, so I'm guessing that this technique has been developed in about the last 5 years, and then applied to the 20-year old salvaged samples and records. And now published.
If you had read the paper (I know, this is a post truth world, so there is never any reason to return to original sources), you'd have read the bit where they say
There is a heretical idea that people might like to WRITE THINGS down in a PAPER, which reasonable people (your question is perfectly reasonable) might want to know, BEFORE the question is asked. This idea has only been in common use for 350 years, so should be considered provisional, though it has actually proved useful in some cases.
You might care to look at the dates there too. They completed their attempts at carbon dating in 1995, but waited until now to publish this analysis, because without the dating, it isn't particularly interesting. The technique they eventually got a date from (uranium-thorium disequilibrium diffusion-adsorbtion dating) is new enough that I am going to have to, uh, read the fucking paper's dozen pages of Supplementary Information to form a worthwhile opinion on it's validity. Though it is, of course, the obvious point of uncertainty.
There was also some damned fine trowel-work in the original excavation. I take my handlens and knee-pads off to the archaeologist who did that salvage excavation and recording.
This point probably need some amplification. For example, how finely do you need to know the currents - on a 10km-grid or 100 times as much work on a 1km grid. Acquiring submarine data like that is not as simple as you seem to think. Just as a starter, how does your mapping device in the water know it's location? Does it assume (incorrectly) that it is directly below some surface device?
Nudge one slightly to create an upwelling(s) of colder water.
This point certainly need some considerable amplification. A good start would be, has anyone ever successfully "nudged" a submarine current in any direction, let alone in a direction against the influence of gravity?
Intel makes a motherboard, and they will probably again make RAM- that's the closest to the full package, but they didn't have a motherboard that would do what I wanted.
What is that profoundly intrusive network management framework that Intel have been building into their ROMs and motherboards for a number of years? You really wanted to play that game?
1) One possible solution: All countries could support ReactOS [reactos.org] so that the Windows OS can be eliminated. 2) No company should be allowed to have a virtual monopoly!
Replace one monopolist with another. Sounds great.
File formats and interfaces are what need to be demonopolised, not particular commodity applications.
I was out walking today through a forest that was originally planted
Was it used for that purpose? The fact that it's still there suggests not.
I carefully used the word "originally" when I originally wrote that. Not because I expected your response, but it suffices.
You seem to be thinking that the trees I was walking amongst were the ones that were planted in the 1300s? No - they had been harvested one at a time, according to their individual shape and size and the lumber needed for a particular ship, from around 200 to 450 years after planting. In each gap left by each harvested tree, others were planted according to the needs of that century while continuing to serve the needs of centuries past. That century's trees were local use as the re-forestation efforts of the 14th century had relieved the military's shortages, and changed ship building techniques reduced the need for particular shapes of lumber. Without the drive of legislation, the new plantings were changed from oak to the more useful (locally) ash and elm. At least, that's what the owner's tax and payment records tell the historians. Those smaller trees were managed by "coppicing" (check your local forester's dialect for their word) with the trees in a continuous state of replenishment from then until the woodland fell out of use in the early 1900s. (There are a few dozen larger uncoppiced trees ; no one knows why they were treated differently. But they change the ecology of the forest considerably.)
Most (not all, "most") coppiced broadleaved forests in the country were grubbed out and replaced with imported conifer species for clear-felling on a 1-2 century cycle during the last century, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the great pit-prop crisis of Word War 1. Which is precisely why this particular piece of woodland was saved from being grubbed out in the early 1970s (for arable, not forestry ; meh), to be used instead as a nature reserve. Then we had the nightmare of Dutch Elm Disease, which I grew up fighting to control in that wood, and which has now been replaced as a bogey-man by Ash Dieback. Fortunately, since we have a range of tree species in the wood, we can lose any one species without losing the woodland as a whole. That's judgement, not luck.
Forest management is a lot more complex than "see it, fell it, move on to the next mountain". Particularly if you don't have a next mountain to move on to.
any concept supported by claims as strong as "It seemes very reasonable to suggest that..." is screaming out to be tested, because if there's one thing we know about people, it's that people are very good at fooling other people. That is why the professions of "confidence trickster" and "politician" exist.
Where I'd look for data would be cases where the volition of the (putative) parents isn't involved in selecting the children to be tested - when checking siblings (cousins, IIRC going further out isn't much better than random chance) as organ or particularly bone marrow donors for a victim.
Good luck getting your proposal to access such data past the ethics committee.
In either case, the solar wind and the sun's gravity can alter the trajectory of the sails.
The influence of other star's gravity is calculable. (Unless there's something gravitating and dark out there.) The influence of interstellar winds... is a fair question. So you send your first few probes off to see how they behave. It's not as if they'll contain anything you're more emotionaly attached to than some bits of wiring and (maybe) an AI.
The Oort cloud also requires consideration. If the sails are not punctured by the particles in the Oort cloud, impacts of those particles on the sails will decelerate them.
In the days before the first probes to Jupiter, exactly the same concerns were raised about going through the Asteroid Belt. We've not had a probe damaged out of - is it about a dozen that have gone through? We have every reason to expect the Oort Cloud to be more diffuse. In either case, suck it and see. Send probes out. Once you've built the lunching lasers (or while you're building them), the incremental cost of each launch is going to be pretty small.
If the sails are punctured, they will become useless in decelerating the sensors when the target star is approached.
They don't work like wind sails. Yes, you'd lose some efficiency. The triangle bounded by the three nearest shroud anchor points would limit the damage. A factor to include in your sail design, certainly. But not a show-stopper.
Well, not quite. You're constrained by the efficiency of your reflector, the maximum temperature your (electronics, mirror coatings, sail, shrouds, whatever is the most temperature-sensitive component of your actual vehicle design) can stand, and your launch laser. So you fire the laser until the probe has the velocity you can dispose of at the destination (which is what this paper is about), then leave it to fly. Re-point laser and launch again. You might not get one launched a week, but several a year is probably feasible. By the time they're flying past Eris, they're probably at cruising speed already.
Slashdot Mirror
Canyons : sites of erosion at tihs time, destroying (after exposing) the rocks and any fossils they contain. Hills similarly are sites of erosion. Valleys : sometime erosion, sometimes deposition as they transport sediment down-valley to temporary or less-temporary storage on their way to the sea. but definitely the valleys are the best chances for finding sites of deposition.
GPR - I've only used GPR down to about 40ft below sediment surface, and we couldn't get a good enough reading to be sure which structures were inclined bedding or void. not the easiest of things to interpret, as you'll know from your own work.
"Other scanning techniques?" Such as?
Still, being able to detect structure down to 40ft below surface doesn't give you permission to dig there, or the funding for the dig. Or the personnel. All the joys of trying to do science in a word of constrained funding and a population who, on average, don't give a flying fuck.
But Gobekli Tepe does raise a real question. Where the fsck did the workforce who built it live while building it, and what did they eat? We may have an answer for Stonehenge (NB: "may") ; for Stonehenge's predecessors like Brodgar, we just don't know. People are looking, but ... there is no guarantee that the evidence hasn't been ploughed up in the Dark Ages. And in the Roman era. And in the mid-Iron Age.
I was just trying to find some usabel bathymetry data for the San Diego area, and while I'm not exactly sure, at about the time of this site (accepting the dating ; I don't see any major holes in it), it was 10 to 20km in from the coast. More strictly, from the 100m isobath, as an estimate of the sealevel at 130kyr. (No, I haven't even looked for an isostatic curve for the area. Though posing the question does suggest where to start looking.)
"completely convincing" against what level of sceptical and detailed investigation?
(I'll admit that in contravention of my normal habits, I haven't RTFA, or even tried to find the origina source. But since I've got two hearing aids in as I type, and have never in my life understood why people waste thier time with music, I doubt there'd be any point in listening to any sounds in the report. I often can hardly recognise what I'm saying, let alone anyone else.)
The world of tricking politicians and press offices with Photoshopped images has been going on for ... about 3 days fewer than Photoshop has existed. And the same practises happened in decades and centuries before then - not excluding my crude darkroom efforts for the rag mag (you remember - dark room full of trays of chemicals. NOT the software!) or Holbein and the infamous Mare of Flanders. And just as long, more skilled operatives have been detecting the fakes and exposing them. Having had to do some photo-interpretation for mapping, I've had to pay a bit closer attention to photographs than most people, and I know I'm not particularly skilled or experienced at it. I sometimes wonder how thick some of the people who get fooled by the worse forgeries can be.
So, these first - well, most-recent - efforts at voice synthesis are not particularly convincing. But they'll improve. And the people detecting the fakes will improve. It's what's called an "arms race".
To be honest, if you want network security then you want two layers of firewall, one using Western hardware and software and the other using hardware and software from non-Western sources.
Which part of "salvage archaeology" do you misunderstand? Literally, the bulldozers are hovering over the site, wanting to get on with paying work.
Which part of "salvage archaeology" do you misunderstand? Literally, the bulldozers are hovering over the site, wanting to get on with paying work.
Which part of "salvage archaeology" do you misunderstand? Literally, the bulldozers are hovering over the site, wanting to get on with paying work.
You have a choice in salvage work. Either get the best results you can now, with the personnel and techniques you have, now, and keep the best records you can, now. Or you get nothing. Big. Fat.Zero.
(You might be able to extend "now" by court action, but while the landsharks are in the shark pool, you need to be nose-down bum-up in the trench because the suit could go either way.
Your other questions are covered in the paper. I don't need to answer them a second time. Get a copy and read it - neither is difficult, and Slashdot does like to claim an intellectually capable readership.
More practically, since it is certain that humans had made it from Africa to at least Indonesia by the time under discussion (a journey necessitating the use of some sort of watercraft for several steps of the journey), then it is not a huge leap to put a population of humans on the Korean/ Kamchatkan coast, living a hunting/ gathering/ fishing lifestyle, and to have them lose boats to a storm from the west on a regular basis (not enough to threaten the populations survival, just part of the regular attrition of death in fishing communities ; my Best Man's home town lost three generations of one family in one boat only about 30 years ago). The few boatmen who survived the ride along the pre-Aleutian chain, past the coastal glaciers of pre-Canada and pre-Cascadia ... eventually might arrive at pre-California and choose to stop. "Here, we can repair, re-equip, collect stores, and figure out how the fuck to get back home." And leave no population behind, because they don't put their valuable women onto the dangerous boats until they're damned sure they know where they're going.
Up-thread some people mention the Vikings going across the North Atlantic, island hopping. They don't mention the well-attested history of pre-Viking voyages (e.g. the "St Brendan" legend) that probably indicate the distorted tails of the few storm-tossed fishermen who did finally make thir way back home ... to start a legend, and to give their descendants the idea that there might be something worth going over the horizon for. Generations later, Erik Thorvaldsson and Ingolfr Arnarson knew damned well there was land "out there" when they set off to settle Greenland and Iceland respectively.
I've never believed that the only population who settled in the Americas were the ones who followed the mid-Canadian ice-free corridor. Not when the coastal route was also available. Unfortunately, archaeological evidence for the coastal route is typically at an elevation of -50 to -100m, making it challenging to identify and dig sites. In that context, this is a very interesting report. Even if I do have doubts about the final numbers for the dating.
IF you accept the dating (see my posts up-thread - I'm by no means convinced by the dating, but need to read the other dozen pages of published material as well as the main paper), then this puts ONE or more H.sapiens (or close relative) in California 130kyr ago. That does not mean a breeding population. That could be one ship-wrecked (is "raft-wrecked" a word?) storm-tossed East Asian who arrived with a fish hook and is starting to re-build his tool kit. This could have happened thousands of times without a breeding population being established.
Off to the Real World.
Far more than there should be.
The bones did not show butchery marks (RTFP, read my link up-thread), so most likely were defleshed by non-humans before the humans "processed" the bones (for marrow, or tool-making material?). That could have been just a few days after the mammoth was killed.
Are you going to try to chase a pack of sabre-tooth tigers away from their kill?
It was pretty funny 20-odd years ago on CompuServe SciMath forum.
here, if you don't have access to Nature (which I don't).
There's a Cornishman, Mr Trevithick, waiting for you with his steam-powered road vehicle and a large spanner in about 1802.
Another person who could have really benefited from reading the paper before making what seem like reasonable comments.
Another person who hasn't read the fucking paper. Hint : before typing, read the fucking paper and see if they have answered your questions before you asked them. It's not difficult.
The site was destroyed in some construction project. Before 1995.
There will be no new samples from this site ever. The site does not exist any more. That is why the field is called "salvage" archaeology. Whatever you get (including records) is all there will ever be.
I have to read the paper's dozen pages of SI (supplementary information), tonight, and follow those references, but since I know of U-Th series dating going back decades, I suspect that the technique of looking at diffusion profiles of U and the Th products of those is the new bit here. The last U-Th paper I read closely was about 5 years ago, so I'm guessing that this technique has been developed in about the last 5 years, and then applied to the 20-year old salvaged samples and records. And now published.
There is a heretical idea that people might like to WRITE THINGS down in a PAPER, which reasonable people (your question is perfectly reasonable) might want to know, BEFORE the question is asked. This idea has only been in common use for 350 years, so should be considered provisional, though it has actually proved useful in some cases.
You might care to look at the dates there too. They completed their attempts at carbon dating in 1995, but waited until now to publish this analysis, because without the dating, it isn't particularly interesting. The technique they eventually got a date from (uranium-thorium disequilibrium diffusion-adsorbtion dating) is new enough that I am going to have to, uh, read the fucking paper's dozen pages of Supplementary Information to form a worthwhile opinion on it's validity. Though it is, of course, the obvious point of uncertainty.
There was also some damned fine trowel-work in the original excavation. I take my handlens and knee-pads off to the archaeologist who did that salvage excavation and recording.
This point probably need some amplification. For example, how finely do you need to know the currents - on a 10km-grid or 100 times as much work on a 1km grid. Acquiring submarine data like that is not as simple as you seem to think. Just as a starter, how does your mapping device in the water know it's location? Does it assume (incorrectly) that it is directly below some surface device?
This point certainly need some considerable amplification. A good start would be, has anyone ever successfully "nudged" a submarine current in any direction, let alone in a direction against the influence of gravity?
I'm not surprised you ticked the "Anonymous" box.
What is that profoundly intrusive network management framework that Intel have been building into their ROMs and motherboards for a number of years? You really wanted to play that game?
Replace one monopolist with another. Sounds great.
File formats and interfaces are what need to be demonopolised, not particular commodity applications.
I carefully used the word "originally" when I originally wrote that. Not because I expected your response, but it suffices.
You seem to be thinking that the trees I was walking amongst were the ones that were planted in the 1300s? No - they had been harvested one at a time, according to their individual shape and size and the lumber needed for a particular ship, from around 200 to 450 years after planting. In each gap left by each harvested tree, others were planted according to the needs of that century while continuing to serve the needs of centuries past. That century's trees were local use as the re-forestation efforts of the 14th century had relieved the military's shortages, and changed ship building techniques reduced the need for particular shapes of lumber. Without the drive of legislation, the new plantings were changed from oak to the more useful (locally) ash and elm. At least, that's what the owner's tax and payment records tell the historians. Those smaller trees were managed by "coppicing" (check your local forester's dialect for their word) with the trees in a continuous state of replenishment from then until the woodland fell out of use in the early 1900s. (There are a few dozen larger uncoppiced trees ; no one knows why they were treated differently. But they change the ecology of the forest considerably.)
Most (not all, "most") coppiced broadleaved forests in the country were grubbed out and replaced with imported conifer species for clear-felling on a 1-2 century cycle during the last century, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the great pit-prop crisis of Word War 1. Which is precisely why this particular piece of woodland was saved from being grubbed out in the early 1970s (for arable, not forestry ; meh), to be used instead as a nature reserve. Then we had the nightmare of Dutch Elm Disease, which I grew up fighting to control in that wood, and which has now been replaced as a bogey-man by Ash Dieback. Fortunately, since we have a range of tree species in the wood, we can lose any one species without losing the woodland as a whole. That's judgement, not luck.
Forest management is a lot more complex than "see it, fell it, move on to the next mountain". Particularly if you don't have a next mountain to move on to.
any concept supported by claims as strong as "It seemes very reasonable to suggest that ..." is screaming out to be tested, because if there's one thing we know about people, it's that people are very good at fooling other people. That is why the professions of "confidence trickster" and "politician" exist.
Where I'd look for data would be cases where the volition of the (putative) parents isn't involved in selecting the children to be tested - when checking siblings (cousins, IIRC going further out isn't much better than random chance) as organ or particularly bone marrow donors for a victim.
Good luck getting your proposal to access such data past the ethics committee.
The influence of other star's gravity is calculable. (Unless there's something gravitating and dark out there.) The influence of interstellar winds ... is a fair question. So you send your first few probes off to see how they behave. It's not as if they'll contain anything you're more emotionaly attached to than some bits of wiring and (maybe) an AI.
In the days before the first probes to Jupiter, exactly the same concerns were raised about going through the Asteroid Belt. We've not had a probe damaged out of - is it about a dozen that have gone through? We have every reason to expect the Oort Cloud to be more diffuse. In either case, suck it and see. Send probes out. Once you've built the lunching lasers (or while you're building them), the incremental cost of each launch is going to be pretty small.
They don't work like wind sails. Yes, you'd lose some efficiency. The triangle bounded by the three nearest shroud anchor points would limit the damage. A factor to include in your sail design, certainly. But not a show-stopper.
Well, at least you did RTFP. (I missed that. Or auto-corrected it below consciousness.)
Well, not quite. You're constrained by the efficiency of your reflector, the maximum temperature your (electronics, mirror coatings, sail, shrouds, whatever is the most temperature-sensitive component of your actual vehicle design) can stand, and your launch laser. So you fire the laser until the probe has the velocity you can dispose of at the destination (which is what this paper is about), then leave it to fly. Re-point laser and launch again. You might not get one launched a week, but several a year is probably feasible. By the time they're flying past Eris, they're probably at cruising speed already.