I wonder if this is something similar to the systems that can prove mathematical theorems. They seem to require some known propositions (like Euclid's axioms) and some rules of logic, then you just turn them loose.
This might be something similar. Presumably, at some point, the process arrives at an unknown result, which would be where the experimenting comes in.
I wonder if there's some way to keep birds away from the turbines? Don't they have this problem at airports also? I know that some people use odd whistle devices on their cars to supposedly scare away deer so they (the deer) don't get hit by cars. Don't know if this works, but perhaps something similar?
Clearly, scientists are going to continue attempting to clone non-human species. It's not difficult to imagine assembling a kind of clone collection, where the material (yeah, I'm not a biologist) necessary to create an arbitrary number any of the filed species would be stored.
This raises the question of the value of conservation to preserve species. Don't get me wrong: I think that conserving land to preserve species is valuable and important. However, if it is possible to recreate a member of a species at will, the question has to be asked whether conservation efforts would become less important. I'm not saying now. I'm thinking of when there are thousands or millions of species preserved.
Galileo first discovered the rings of Saturn during an opposition, too. (Opposition being the term for when Saturn is on the OPPOSITE side of the sky from the sun, therefore, the sun is shining directly on Saturn and Earth is also closest to Saturn.) It was in July of 1610 that he turned his telescope on that planet.
As he wrote, "I discovered another very strange wonder, which I should like to make known to their Highnesses [the Medici]. . . , keeping it secret, however, until the time when my work is published . . . . the star of Saturn is not a single star, but is a composite of three, which almost touch each other, never change or move relative to each other, and are arranged in a row along the zodiac, the middle one being three times larger than the lateral ones, and they are situated in this form: oOo. " (http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Things/satur n.html)
Even geniuses and famous discoverers make mistakes.
"The Sierpinski Problem: Definition and Status
In 1960 Waclaw Sierpinski (1882-1969) proved the following interesting result.
Theorem [S]. There exist infinitely many odd integers k such that k*2n + 1 is composite for every n > 1.
A multiplier k with this property is called a Sierpinski number. The Sierpinski problem consists in determining the smallest Sierpinski number. In 1962, John Selfridge discovered the Sierpinski number k = 78557, which is now believed to be in fact the smallest such number.
Conjecture. The integer k = 78557 is the smallest Sierpinski number.
To prove the conjecture, it suffices to exhibit a prime k*2n + 1 for each k less than 78557. By August 1997, this had been done for all except the following 21 values of k less than 78557. As long as a prime is not found for a listed k, that k might be considered a potential Sierpinski number. However, as the conjecture suggests, in the long run a prime is expected to emerge for each of these k."
So, what these folks have done is found a prime for another candidate k less than 78557.
I find the search for primes -- and for more complicated results, like this one, that use primes -- to be fascinating. There is something so pure about this world of mathematics. (As Kronecker is quoted as saying, "God made the integers; all else is the work of Man.") This kind of study says something very deep about the nature of the universe we live in.
If there are other intelligent beings in the universe, it is fascinating to contemplate that -- no matter what other differences we may have -- they may be finding out these same facts about pure mathematics. It's a language we have in common.
Mars day so close to Earth day
on
Living on Mars Time
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I find it remarkable that the length of a Mars day is nearly the same as an Earth day. The two planets have had very different kinds of histories. Plus, the Moon's gravitational effect is gradually slowing down the Earth's rotation, effectively lengthening the day.
I wonder what comparable effects (2 moons?) on Mars have led to both planets having similar days.
Or, is this just how the Designers planned this particular planetary system?
I'm curious about the expected practical outcome of this change. Presumably, they would be using the same prediction routines, but on faster boxes.
Would this mean that they would get the same predictions, just a little faster?
Would more capable machines mean that they could run some more-complex versions of the prediction routines they run now? Say, with more grid points, or smaller time divisions?
Are the current prediction routines OS-dependent, so that they'll have to be ported to the new Linux OS? Is that easy or hard?
What effect does the new Linux OS have on future application development? Are the existing development tools HP-UX oriented? Does that mean they would need a new tool set to do their development?
I'm curious about whether there's any correlation between the signals they find most "interesting" and the locations of known extrasolar planets. I'd say if any of the interesting signals come from a place with planets, it has to be significant.
...there isn't a 7-million-year-old alien artifact hidden in the comet that transforms the probe into an ancient temple and forces Data to take on various identities that...
Whoops. Never mind. This is one of those reality things.
I've worked on a number of book sales for my local library, and guess who their best customers are? Book dealers. Book dealers go to many local library sales, are the first in the doors, and swoop on all the best and most valuable stuff before the ordinary patrons roll out of bed. Then they resell the merch themselves.
Why shouldn't the libraries get the top dollar for their books? They're perennially short on the crispies and use it for the benefit of the community.
It's amazing how many poisons have medicinal uses in the right quantities. It brings up several points.
I find it interesting that substances that are deadly on certain levels are helpful on others. It reminds me of reports that low-level radiation doses can apparently have healthy results.
We must be missing some important piece in our understanding of medicine, if this effect has no explanation. Biology must be more complicated than we thought. (Duh!)
How can it be that something which is essentially injurious to a system (in this case, a person) actually helps the system in certain circumstances? Is this a general principle, and why does it work?
I'm curious about how many inter-computer connections would be necessary to achieve a certain level of failure. For example, if each computer has an average of N connections to other computers, and a percentage P of the network gets blown away, what fraction F of the network would still be able to carry on?
I would imagine some simulations of this would be interesting, varying N and P and seeing what F turned out to be.
Then, if we wanted to achieve a certain level of survival - like 90% -- for a reasonable failure P - like 10% -- what would be the best value for N? Presumably, the more important computers in the system should have far more than N connections.
Maybe this was already done in the original project that led to the Internet?
(My usual score is -1, just to save you some time.)
Excerpt from "Virtual Light"
on
Superball!
·
· Score: -1
And here I thought this was going to be a sample chapter from Virtual Light.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we've made up for that.
This might be something similar. Presumably, at some point, the process arrives at an unknown result, which would be where the experimenting comes in.
This raises the question of the value of conservation to preserve species. Don't get me wrong: I think that conserving land to preserve species is valuable and important. However, if it is possible to recreate a member of a species at will, the question has to be asked whether conservation efforts would become less important. I'm not saying now. I'm thinking of when there are thousands or millions of species preserved.
Anyway, what do you think?
I seem to recall animals being used to grow skin and arterial tissue for later use in humans.
Plus, aren't there plants that ingest and retain toxic materials?
This discovery seems like another situation where we can leverage what animals do naturally for our own purposes.
It makes me wonder what else is possible that we haven't figured out yet.
As he wrote, "I discovered another very strange wonder, which I should like to make known to their Highnesses [the Medici]. . . , keeping it secret, however, until the time when my work is published . . . . the star of Saturn is not a single star, but is a composite of three, which almost touch each other, never change or move relative to each other, and are arranged in a row along the zodiac, the middle one being three times larger than the lateral ones, and they are situated in this form: oOo. " (http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Things/satur n.html)
Even geniuses and famous discoverers make mistakes.
So, when do the flying robots armed with machine guns show up?
"The Sierpinski Problem: Definition and Status In 1960 Waclaw Sierpinski (1882-1969) proved the following interesting result.
Theorem [S]. There exist infinitely many odd integers k such that k*2n + 1 is composite for every n > 1.
A multiplier k with this property is called a Sierpinski number. The Sierpinski problem consists in determining the smallest Sierpinski number. In 1962, John Selfridge discovered the Sierpinski number k = 78557, which is now believed to be in fact the smallest such number.
Conjecture. The integer k = 78557 is the smallest Sierpinski number.
To prove the conjecture, it suffices to exhibit a prime k*2n + 1 for each k less than 78557. By August 1997, this had been done for all except the following 21 values of k less than 78557. As long as a prime is not found for a listed k, that k might be considered a potential Sierpinski number. However, as the conjecture suggests, in the long run a prime is expected to emerge for each of these k."
So, what these folks have done is found a prime for another candidate k less than 78557.
I find the search for primes -- and for more complicated results, like this one, that use primes -- to be fascinating. There is something so pure about this world of mathematics. (As Kronecker is quoted as saying, "God made the integers; all else is the work of Man.") This kind of study says something very deep about the nature of the universe we live in.
If there are other intelligent beings in the universe, it is fascinating to contemplate that -- no matter what other differences we may have -- they may be finding out these same facts about pure mathematics. It's a language we have in common.
At least, that's what I'm supposed to be sure of.
I wonder what comparable effects (2 moons?) on Mars have led to both planets having similar days.
Or, is this just how the Designers planned this particular planetary system?
Tip: Lay in a big supply of junk food and t-shirts that say "all your base are belong to us".
Surf's up!
How about all the dead zones in major cities like New York?
Would this mean that they would get the same predictions, just a little faster?
Would more capable machines mean that they could run some more-complex versions of the prediction routines they run now? Say, with more grid points, or smaller time divisions?
Are the current prediction routines OS-dependent, so that they'll have to be ported to the new Linux OS? Is that easy or hard?
What effect does the new Linux OS have on future application development? Are the existing development tools HP-UX oriented? Does that mean they would need a new tool set to do their development?
Does anyone know if this will positively affect security?
Whoops. Never mind. This is one of those reality things.
Why shouldn't the libraries get the top dollar for their books? They're perennially short on the crispies and use it for the benefit of the community.
I find it interesting that substances that are deadly on certain levels are helpful on others. It reminds me of reports that low-level radiation doses can apparently have healthy results.
We must be missing some important piece in our understanding of medicine, if this effect has no explanation. Biology must be more complicated than we thought. (Duh!)
How can it be that something which is essentially injurious to a system (in this case, a person) actually helps the system in certain circumstances? Is this a general principle, and why does it work?
Is this applicable to technological systems?
Any news on that?
I would imagine some simulations of this would be interesting, varying N and P and seeing what F turned out to be.
Then, if we wanted to achieve a certain level of survival - like 90% -- for a reasonable failure P - like 10% -- what would be the best value for N? Presumably, the more important computers in the system should have far more than N connections.
Maybe this was already done in the original project that led to the Internet?
(My usual score is -1, just to save you some time.)
And here I thought this was going to be a sample chapter from Virtual Light.