I sort of agree, but you are assuming that your way of playing chess is better than the computer's way. The Turing test implies that it isn't the means but the result that is important.
After all, a Ferrari is a much better way of getting down the road than walking is, and a Ferrrari doesn't have shoes.
Very nicely put. The schoolboy physicist is told that centrifugal force does not exist, so we see it repeated here ad infinitum. The structural engineer (me) knows that the tension in the thread is not a vector, it is a tensor, a two headed vector, if you pass a control plane through the thread there are forces BOTH ways.
Gosh, and I thought all inertial reference frames were valid in a universe in which relativity applies.
Well that's a smarty answer, you are right, from an earth centric viewpoint I should have phrased it more carefully. I was thinking harder about the lag, since that was the questioner's angle, rather than the centripetal force which I thought I'd got round.
It's not a stupid question. Get a ball on a string and whirl it round. The ball doesn't lag does it? The outward pull of the ball keeps the string taut. The exact same effect will be used by the elevator. Locally, in the atmosphere, the cable will be stationary, so it will have to resist wind loads, but they have worked those out. There is also some drag due to space debris and solar wind, but again they have accounted or that.
Good article, nice website, fantastic project. As Arthur C Clarke said (I think, loosely), we'll be using a space elevator about twenty years after everyone stops laughing at the idea.
Right hand mouse, left hand keyboard. What I need is a keyboard that allows me to type everything with one hand. That means I need things like caps lock. Shift lock would be good.
The totally disgusting keyboard that I'm using now indicates that I hit every key except the function keys, backquote/tilde, scroll lock and pause, often enough to keep them legible.
As to extra functionality, my mouse has five buttons, one is copy, the other is paste.
I guess the arguments would run (some nicked from other posts), and none I agree with
1) There may be Mars life there already, and if we terraform the planet it'll die. Actually this is the best argument, but we won't know unless we spend a bit of time there. A likely way that we'll find well hidden life is if we start terraforming and things go wrong.
2) Mankind has screwed up one planet, now we're going to screw another
3) Life is not inherently worthwhile, therefore increasing the number of planets with life on them is at best futile
4) as 3 replace life by man
5) Mars was meant to be dead and red for aesthetic reasons
6) It is not an economically viable project
7) We should cure poverty on Earth before chasing off around the Universe. My take: we won't cure poverty on Earth, exploring the universe is our best way forward.
PS: Warning: First/. post
Slashdot Mirror
I sort of agree, but you are assuming that your way of playing chess is better than the computer's way. The Turing test implies that it isn't the means but the result that is important.
After all, a Ferrari is a much better way of getting down the road than walking is, and a Ferrrari doesn't have shoes.
Very nicely put. The schoolboy physicist is told that centrifugal force does not exist, so we see it repeated here ad infinitum. The structural engineer (me) knows that the tension in the thread is not a vector, it is a tensor, a two headed vector, if you pass a control plane through the thread there are forces BOTH ways.
A glass of wine with you, sir!
Gosh, and I thought all inertial reference frames were valid in a universe in which relativity applies.
Well that's a smarty answer, you are right, from an earth centric viewpoint I should have phrased it more carefully. I was thinking harder about the lag, since that was the questioner's angle, rather than the centripetal force which I thought I'd got round.
Mea Culpa
It's not a stupid question. Get a ball on a string and whirl it round. The ball doesn't lag does it? The outward pull of the ball keeps the string taut. The exact same effect will be used by the elevator. Locally, in the atmosphere, the cable will be stationary, so it will have to resist wind loads, but they have worked those out. There is also some drag due to space debris and solar wind, but again they have accounted or that.
Good article, nice website, fantastic project. As Arthur C Clarke said (I think, loosely), we'll be using a space elevator about twenty years after everyone stops laughing at the idea.
Learn to read. I said I'd walked to Gorak Shep. It is at about 5000 m, 16500 ft.
The totally disgusting keyboard that I'm using now indicates that I hit every key except the function keys, backquote/tilde, scroll lock and pause, often enough to keep them legible.
As to extra functionality, my mouse has five buttons, one is copy, the other is paste.
Now explain why?
Shirley, most people visualise numbers as a long stream, like the top row on the keyboard, not a 3 by 3 1/3 matrix as on a numeric keypad.
No, there's about 20-40 a day get to the old base camp (Gorak Shep) during the walking season. BTDT
I guess the arguments would run (some nicked from other posts), and none I agree with 1) There may be Mars life there already, and if we terraform the planet it'll die. Actually this is the best argument, but we won't know unless we spend a bit of time there. A likely way that we'll find well hidden life is if we start terraforming and things go wrong. 2) Mankind has screwed up one planet, now we're going to screw another 3) Life is not inherently worthwhile, therefore increasing the number of planets with life on them is at best futile 4) as 3 replace life by man 5) Mars was meant to be dead and red for aesthetic reasons 6) It is not an economically viable project 7) We should cure poverty on Earth before chasing off around the Universe. My take: we won't cure poverty on Earth, exploring the universe is our best way forward. PS: Warning: First /. post