Better because evolution is constrained to a very narrow set of tools. All life we know of is based on RNA and DNA, and almost the only tool directly available to it is protein. The idea that this limited set of tools results in the best possible replicative unit is almost absurd.
The difficulties of creating something that can compete with bacteria are indeed huge, seemingly near infinite. Our eventual capacity to tackle such problems also beyond our current comprehension. When and if one near infinity reaches the other I don't know, but it won't be anytime soon.
Part of my point was that we don't need to create anything that can survive outside a controlled environment to reap the benefits of nanotech, and since it's so hard and dangerous, we probably won't.
The reason a grey goo scenario looks possible is that there is every reason to think that nanobots could do everything that bacteria do, and do it better. Since bacteria currently are ubiquitous, so could be nanobots.
Building self replicating nanobots that can use readily available natural resources is, however, difficult, dangerous, and inefficient.
Designing nanobots to use specialized feed stocks for both energy and raw building material is far easier. By using bulk processing to create the feed stocks, nanobots could never get out of control.
Your technique looks right, but not your terminology.
Time for a refresher course, I guess. The least common multiple is 196, not any common divisor. The greatest common divisor is 14, which doesn't seem to be of any particular use here.
I think all of us here know how to add fractions, but how do we get our calculators to it for us? I mean, unless you overflow the calculator doesn't care about the size of the numbers, so you may as well just remove the common factors at the end. Should our calculators have a reduce fraction to lowest terms button? I don't recall ever having a desire to, I would normally just use floats.
"And considering the big mess made by US Skylab when it came down, a gentle push toward the sun is the more likely outcome."
A gentle push toward the sun just gets you a more elliptical orbit. Luna may be the most reachable permanent dumping place, but even that takes way more delta-v than we're willing to pay for.
If we can't repair Hubble, I think we should move it to a higher orbit, where it would be stable for a century or more, rather than de-orbiting it to a safe destruction now.
My bet is that by that time it will be such a historical icon that it will be brought back safely for display.
"Are Mersennes really the easiest numbers to prove prime?"
Yes, because of the Lucas Lehmer primality test, which you can google if you want to see the details.
The standard proof of primality involves factoring the number one less than or one greater than the prime. Obviously, the number one greater than 2^p-1 is easily factored, which is the basis of the test.
A minor point: The neutron's mass isn't all that much, only about a quarter that of the relatively safe alpha particles (helium nuclei). Their lack of charge allows them to penetrate objects and be absorbed by nuclei, often making them radioactive.
If we can get people to accept commercial use of radioactive isotopes, would they be cost effective? Nuclear power plants produce them, but refining the raw waste for the useful isotopes is expensive. If this power source does become popular, I really wonder if there is enough waste being produced to meet the potential demand.
If the proper isotopes can be obtained cheaply, could they be used for winter house heating in the north? In spring, you could just move some baffles to vent the unwanted heat outside.
I bought an 11" square fresnel lens (from Edmund's) when I was about twelve. The most refractory material I was able to melt was filings from a nickel coin, which were (and I suppose still are) mostly copper.
The temperature you can achieve is mainly determined by the ratio of the diameter of the lens to the focal length. A larger lens with the same ratio lets you heat up larger objects, but it won't get small objects much hotter. A penny was much too large for my lens to have a visible effect on.
For now, this automated grading is probably meant for standardized tests, where adjusting grades for student ability does seem completely inappropriate.
In a classroom setting, however, a teacher's main goal is not evaluating students, but educating them. If marking down a student for not not trying hard enough motivates the student to improve, that's good teaching. If this technique is used, I do feel strongly that it must not be allowed to hurt their permanent record, i.e. report cards.
I've seen a similar proposal for an aluminum air "battery". An aluminum powder slurry was to be replaced, rathen than the whole battery (really more of a fuel cell).
This was maybe 30 years ago, and I've heard nothing since.
I find it interesting that after all these years the Cone of Silence, the useless security divice from the spy spoof Get Smart, still needs no introduction.
The security issues with voting and ATMs are of a somewhat different type.
In particular, we probably do not want people to be able to prove who they voted for. This could lead to vote buying, or women retaliating against their husbands for voting the wrong way. Or vice versa.
Argon primarily comes from the radioactive decay of potassium-40. Alpha decay being more common, a lot more helium is generated then argon.
The atmosphere is basically homogeneous up to about 100 km, and contains about 5 ppm helium.
Helium doesn't doesn't become a large part of the atmosphere until well above the altitude of the international space station, where I think the prospects for helium mining is limited.
It is generally stated that iron is the most stable element, not tin. I once read a science fiction story that made the odd claim that silver was the most stable.
In high school, I did the calculations using CRC data, which implied that an isotope of nickle was even more stable than iron. It was a small difference, and perhaps I made a mistake. Or the CRC data might have been off.
In any case, this is the first claim I have seen for tin being the most stable element, and I doubt it.
There is a nice map on page 104 of the May Scientific American.
Northern Alaska has a view of the full transit. Southern Alaska can see the start of the transit, cut off by sunset. The rest of North America outside the west coast can see the end of the transit, starting at sunrise.
Chile and southern Argentina cannot see any of the transit, the rest of South America can see the end of the transit, starting at sunrise.
The child porn penalty could be important in some cases. You could have fraudulent spam offering child porn, where the sender does not actually have any.
Slashdot Mirror
Better because evolution is constrained to a very narrow set of tools. All life we know of is based on RNA and DNA, and almost the only tool directly available to it is protein. The idea that this limited set of tools results in the best possible replicative unit is almost absurd.
The difficulties of creating something that can compete with bacteria are indeed huge, seemingly near infinite. Our eventual capacity to tackle such problems also beyond our current comprehension. When and if one near infinity reaches the other I don't know, but it won't be anytime soon.
Part of my point was that we don't need to create anything that can survive outside a controlled environment to reap the benefits of nanotech, and since it's so hard and dangerous, we probably won't.
The reason a grey goo scenario looks possible is that there is every reason to think that nanobots could do everything that bacteria do, and do it better. Since bacteria currently are ubiquitous, so could be nanobots.
Building self replicating nanobots that can use readily available natural resources is, however, difficult, dangerous, and inefficient.
Designing nanobots to use specialized feed stocks for both energy and raw building material is far easier. By using bulk processing to create the feed stocks, nanobots could never get out of control.
Your technique looks right, but not your terminology.
Time for a refresher course, I guess. The least common multiple is 196, not any common divisor. The greatest common divisor is 14, which doesn't seem to be of any particular use here.
I think all of us here know how to add fractions, but how do we get our calculators to it for us? I mean, unless you overflow the calculator doesn't care about the size of the numbers, so you may as well just remove the common factors at the end. Should our calculators have a reduce fraction to lowest terms button? I don't recall ever having a desire to, I would normally just use floats.
"And considering the big mess made by US Skylab
when it came down, a gentle push toward the sun
is the more likely outcome."
A gentle push toward the sun just gets you a more elliptical orbit. Luna may be the most reachable permanent dumping place, but even that takes way more delta-v than we're willing to pay for.
If we can't repair Hubble, I think we should move it to a higher orbit, where it would be stable for a century or more, rather than de-orbiting it to a safe destruction now.
My bet is that by that time it will be such a historical icon that it will be brought back safely for display.
Sea water is corrosive. It's a lot easier to contain the wastes if you keep them dry.
"Are Mersennes really the easiest numbers to prove prime?"
Yes, because of the Lucas Lehmer primality test, which you can google if you want to see the details.
The standard proof of primality involves factoring the number one less than or one greater than the prime. Obviously, the number one greater than 2^p-1 is easily factored, which is the basis of the test.
Did you notice the site has a last updated 02/03/03 message in it?
I wish the editors could have found a page that actually has current content in it to link to.
Why is a raven like a writing desk?
I always preferred:
The notes for which each is noted are not noted for being musical notes.
A minor point: The neutron's mass isn't all that much, only about a quarter that of the relatively safe alpha particles (helium nuclei). Their lack of charge allows them to penetrate objects and be absorbed by nuclei, often making them radioactive.
If we can get people to accept commercial use of radioactive isotopes, would they be cost effective? Nuclear power plants produce them, but refining the raw waste for the useful isotopes is expensive. If this power source does become popular, I really wonder if there is enough waste being produced to meet the potential demand.
If the proper isotopes can be obtained cheaply, could they be used for winter house heating in the north? In spring, you could just move some baffles to vent the unwanted heat outside.
I bought an 11" square fresnel lens (from Edmund's) when I was about twelve. The most refractory material I was able to melt was filings from a nickel coin, which were (and I suppose still are) mostly copper.
The temperature you can achieve is mainly determined by the ratio of the diameter of the lens to the focal length. A larger lens with the same ratio lets you heat up larger objects, but it won't get small objects much hotter. A penny was much too large for my lens to have a visible effect on.
For now, this automated grading is probably meant for standardized tests, where adjusting grades for student ability does seem completely inappropriate.
In a classroom setting, however, a teacher's main goal is not evaluating students, but educating them. If marking down a student for not not trying hard enough motivates the student to improve, that's good teaching. If this technique is used, I do feel strongly that it must not be allowed to hurt their permanent record, i.e. report cards.
As I understand it, WINE could be considered a clone of Windows, and many people find it usefull.
I've seen a similar proposal for an aluminum air "battery". An aluminum powder slurry was to be replaced, rathen than the whole battery (really more of a fuel cell).
This was maybe 30 years ago, and I've heard nothing since.
It's not stopping popup blocking, but banner blocking. I'm running Firefox with the anti-ad provisions installed, and I got blocked.
Had to fire up IE to view it.
I find it interesting that after all these years the Cone of Silence, the useless security divice from the spy spoof Get Smart, still needs no introduction.
The power of Nicelodeon has indeed grown large.
The security issues with voting and ATMs are of a somewhat different type.
In particular, we probably do not want people to be able to prove who they voted for. This could lead to vote buying, or women retaliating against their husbands for voting the wrong way. Or vice versa.
Argon primarily comes from the radioactive decay of potassium-40. Alpha decay being more common, a lot more helium is generated then argon.
The atmosphere is basically homogeneous up to about 100 km, and contains about 5 ppm helium.
Helium doesn't doesn't become a large part of the atmosphere until well above the altitude of the international space station, where I think the prospects for helium mining is limited.
Nobel invented dynamite, not TNT.
It is generally stated that iron is the most stable element, not tin. I once read a science fiction story that made the odd claim that silver was the most stable.
In high school, I did the calculations using CRC data, which implied that an isotope of nickle was even more stable than iron. It was a small difference, and perhaps I made a mistake. Or the CRC data might have been off.
In any case, this is the first claim I have seen for tin being the most stable element, and I doubt it.
There is a nice map on page 104 of the May Scientific American.
Northern Alaska has a view of the full transit. Southern Alaska can see the start of the transit, cut off by sunset. The rest of North America outside the west coast can see the end of the transit, starting at sunrise.
Chile and southern Argentina cannot see any of the transit, the rest of South America can see the end of the transit, starting at sunrise.
I have a spare telescope and the free time, but I live in California.
The west coast of North America and most of South America won't be able to see the transit.
The child porn penalty could be important in some cases. You could have fraudulent spam offering child porn, where the sender does not actually have any.
Not 18,185,947,580,800 kWh. From your own numbers it should be 18,185,947,580,800,000 kWh available from solar (you were off by a factor of 1000).
Completely moving to solar electric would be very expensive with current technology, and use a lot of land, but it probably could be done.
The coffee makers I buy seem to think a cup is about four ounces.
I don't know anyone who drinks such small cups (except for espresso). I personally use a 20 oz. cup.
Actually 80 numbers in a keno game. Doesn't affect you point much, of course.