Gallium costs around $US500/kg. It's hard to say how much they would need in this product, but it wouldn't suprise me if the gallium alone adds $30-50 to the cost.
That's the whole point though: There Is No Repetion Of The 6! There is only one six (digamma). The others are the number sixty (which does *not* contain a six), and the number six-hundred (which also contains no six).
I'm not talking about literal repetition of six/digamma. I'm talking about repetition of six-ness. My point is that 6, 60 and 600 all have the property of six-ness in both numbering systems. 'Xi' and 'chi' contain a notion of six-ness, just as in decimal numbering. It's just that it's not made as explicit as in decimal, but if you were working regularly in the Greek system it would be obvious.
If you were to write three sixes in ancient Greek, they would be three sixes, not six hundred sixty six.
versus
I wrote it as the pronunciation to point out that it is *not* three sixes in a row, but the literal number six-hundred sixty six.
Make your mind up! (or alternatively make yourself clear).
Besides I think you're taking the differences in numbering schemes and blowing them out of all proportion. The intended defining feature of the number/name is the repetition of the 6. This would be obvious regardless of the numbering scheme. Just because it's even more obvious in decimal, doesn't make it accidental, in my opinion.
No it's not evolution, but not because there's no determination of fitness! Fitness is the only thing they DO do. The reason it's not evolution is because there's no reproduction. Each parent is destroyed when it produces a mutated child.
There have been a lot of people like you who refer to their own in-silico GA stuff. This also misses the whole point of this article. That being that these critters are physically emobied.
Python performs very few implicit conversions (mostly between different representations of float) and therefore is strongly typed.
Found your comments interesting, but have to disagree with you here. Python performs extensive built-in cooercion and also allows customised cooercion routines. Further, many arguments are allowed to be simply any object that has certain properties (such as "has a.write() method". As such it's weakly typed.
I mean, I can't come upon a murder, find a footprint, and say I finished. There's much more to it than that. Yes, this is a huge step, but no, everything isn't "solved." In fact, they could be completely wrong...
That depends how far it is from the other footprint.
Well nothing lasts forever. They might last 20 years, say, but the calculation of cost per kWh will depend fairly critically on lifetime/maintenance of the dish.
If they decided they would last 50 years with no maintenance in arriving at 6.5c/kWh then they might well be in for a shock!
Here in Europe a huge proportion of people commute on the train, often for more than 2 hours a day. Usually a resonable arrangement is made with your employer. Many people really enjoy the quite time to get work done balanced with meetings in the middle of the day.
Yes you would be guilty. If it was done anonymously you may well get away with it, but those who set up the system in the first place will not be anonymous. They'd be charged with accessory to murder, reckless endagerment, etc and the system would be shut down.
Think rocket fuel. The weight is critical to how much fuel you'll need. Lighter fuels are invaluable even if it takes heaps of energy to generate them.
5 Riemann hypothesis Involving zeta functions, and an assertion that all "interesting" solutions to an equation lie on a straight line. It seems to be true for the first 1,500 million solutions, but does that mean it is true for them all?
Answer: NO it doesn't mean it's true for all of them. You would have to prove that.
Rubbish. The use of the word "on" removes any claim to comprehensive explanation. The paper could contain either a minor observation or a complete theory.
The article actually says 10,000-1 for intelligent life on Titan. A sucker bet if ever there was one. I mean, how do you define intelligence in this case? If the Titan bookmakers took an unexpected phone call from president Bush, do you really think they would be rushing to pay out?
Nice post, but one detail has to be wrong. If you could use the destination system for gravity braking then you would be able to equally use our own system for gravity acceleration. The only way the destination is more effective is if you actually slam into it (or perform aerobraking).
The speeds involved in inter-stellar are so high that gravity assisted decelleration is probably out of the question. Aero-braking in an atmosphere is certainly not an option. There have been some proposals for braking on interstellar hydrogen I believe (ramjet concept).
Can someone explain what is amateur about these enterprises? Just because they're not government funded or making a profit doesn't mean they're not professional.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you watch the movies?! Being polite and feeling the need to explain always gives the good guys time to sneak up behind / escape / etc.
Shoot first! Be polite later!
Gallium costs around $US500/kg.
It's hard to say how much they would need in
this product, but it wouldn't suprise me if the
gallium alone adds $30-50 to the cost.
From NASA's published schedule:
2015 - 2020 - First moon landing by astronauts in lunar spacecraft.
So they finally admit it never happened in the 1960s!
That's the whole point though: There Is No Repetion Of The 6! There is only one six (digamma). The others are the number sixty (which does *not* contain a six), and the number six-hundred (which also contains no six).
I'm not talking about literal repetition of six/digamma. I'm talking about repetition of six-ness. My point is that 6, 60 and 600 all have the property of six-ness in both numbering systems. 'Xi' and 'chi' contain a notion of six-ness, just as in decimal numbering. It's just that it's not made as explicit as in decimal, but if you were working regularly in the Greek system it would be obvious.
You're contradicting yourself:
If you were to write three sixes in ancient Greek, they would be three sixes, not six hundred sixty six.
versus
I wrote it as the pronunciation to point out that it is *not* three sixes in a row, but the literal number six-hundred sixty six.
Make your mind up! (or alternatively make yourself clear).
Besides I think you're taking the differences in numbering schemes and blowing them out of all proportion. The intended defining feature of the number/name is the repetition of the 6. This would be obvious regardless of the numbering scheme. Just because it's even more obvious in decimal, doesn't make it accidental, in my opinion.
I think you're wrong, most people would say "six-six-six", not "six hundred...".
No it's not evolution, but not because there's no determination of fitness! Fitness is the only thing they DO do. The reason it's not evolution is because there's no reproduction. Each parent is destroyed when it produces a mutated child.
There have been a lot of people like you who refer to their own in-silico GA stuff. This also misses the whole point of this article. That being that these critters are physically emobied.
You're right it's not evolution, but not for the reason you point out.
The reason it's not evolution is because there's no reproduction!
Python performs very few implicit conversions (mostly between different representations of float) and therefore is strongly typed.
.write() method". As such it's weakly typed.
Found your comments interesting, but have to disagree with you here. Python performs extensive built-in cooercion and also allows customised cooercion routines. Further, many arguments are allowed to be simply any object that has certain properties (such as "has a
PC? It's not a PC it's a Mac! *fume*
I mean, I can't come upon a murder, find a footprint, and say I finished. There's much more to it than that. Yes, this is a huge step, but no, everything isn't "solved." In fact, they could be completely wrong...
That depends how far it is from the other footprint.
This was reported months ago in New Scientist.
Uh, an embryo can continue growing, a corpse can't.
;)
Not strictly true. Hair and nails continue growing for quite some time.
Well nothing lasts forever. They might last 20 years, say, but the calculation of cost per kWh will depend fairly critically on lifetime/maintenance of the dish.
If they decided they would last 50 years with no maintenance in arriving at 6.5c/kWh then they might well be in for a shock!
I'm not buying your simplistic analogies, but I was wrong too. See CheshireCatCO's reply to my posting.
Also these fascinating pages.
Apparently we still don't know what creates the density wave in the first place, or maintains them. All we know is why they're brighter...
Not exactly a new situation though, is it?
Here in Europe a huge proportion of people commute on the train, often for more than 2 hours a day.
Usually a resonable arrangement is made with your employer. Many people really enjoy the quite time to get work done balanced with meetings in the middle of the day.
Yes you would be guilty. If it was done anonymously you may well get away with it, but those who set up the system in the first place will not be anonymous. They'd be charged with accessory to murder, reckless endagerment, etc and the system would be shut down.
It's not the same thing at all. A density wave propagates through a fluid like air through near-elastic collisions.
Stars in the spiral arms don't collide and if they did they would be far from elastic.
The arms rotate only because the stars that form them rotate, there's no wave propagating through some medium.
Think rocket fuel. The weight is critical to how much fuel you'll need. Lighter fuels are invaluable even if it takes heaps of energy to generate them.
I've solved it:
5 Riemann hypothesis Involving zeta functions, and an assertion that all "interesting" solutions to an equation lie on a straight line. It seems to be true for the first 1,500 million solutions, but does that mean it is true for them all?
Answer: NO it doesn't mean it's true for all of them. You would have to prove that.
Where do I get my money?
Rubbish. The use of the word "on" removes any claim to comprehensive explanation. The paper could contain either a minor observation or a complete theory.
The article actually says 10,000-1 for intelligent life on Titan. A sucker bet if ever there was one. I mean, how do you define intelligence in this case? If the Titan bookmakers took an unexpected phone call from president Bush, do you really think they would be rushing to pay out?
And yet, your post is a political one, not a scientific one. So you have contributed solely to politics with your comment. :)
Nice post, but one detail has to be wrong. If you could use the destination system for gravity braking then you would be able to equally use our own system for gravity acceleration. The only way the destination is more effective is if you actually slam into it (or perform aerobraking).
The speeds involved in inter-stellar are so high that gravity assisted decelleration is probably out of the question. Aero-braking in an atmosphere is certainly not an option. There have been some proposals for braking on interstellar hydrogen I believe (ramjet concept).
Can someone explain what is amateur about these enterprises? Just because they're not government funded or making a profit doesn't mean they're not professional.
:]
Maybe it's the fact they crashed?...