studiot

Well it's your thread so I will bow out with the observation that you are limiting the scope. For instance why is it necessary to leave ? The Founding Fathers of New England had nothing to go back to and did not expect to leave so what would be wrong with a one way journey ? Further why should the journey not outlast the lifespan of those who started, if proper provision for continuity was made ? Everyone seems to be discounting slow, but slow could be goog, given these details.

Which is why I asked at the beginning

I'm not going to say it. No I'm not going dare to say it. It's working again. There I've said it. Hope I didn't break it.

From a quick look at the company website it seems very specialised to small, perhaps intricate, machine tools. Simulation software has been around a long time and, depending upon the enormously wide range of processes (probably almost all process) that can be simulated as well as the type of simulation required, may or may not be suitable for any given application.

What would be an appropriate 'cruising speed' for spores or seeds, given that we have not idea of their longevity ? Who said anything about the conditions in space or an atmousphere ? Spores/seeds embedded deeply enough in a large enough rock would not experience the former or suffer from the latter as the outer layers of rock would protect them. Such a journey would also take care of the deceleration issue.

I'm still wishing. Perhaps you saw your lucky star last night ?

Well does the 'alien' have to be sentient ? I am observing that non-dead life from at least 5,000 years ago has survived and been revived here on Earth (eg seeds from the Pyramids) So could spores, seeds, whatever travel on rocks or other natural interstellar objects in say twice that or 104 years ?

Brains in Customer Service ??!? What planet do you live on ? I had time to plant the coffe, harvest it, roast it, make and drink the coffee, whilst posting this.

I wish.

Don't know how this will play in other countries, but the arc is the last bit of this minute and a half video https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/ce8pp9r03z7o

Well my browser has been helpfully ()forcibly) upgraded without my knowledge to the new improved version that does things I do not want it to do. So there is a new wave which goes against all my security training look for the https but suppressing the http or https bit. So the browser originally looks for http - see screenshot 1 when I wanted to move from Google to SF. So when after I though I died waiting and the system finally logged into St I see it then finds the https version. See screenshot 2 All nicely hidden by the browser. Perhaps those pesky ruskies are frigging with the transatlantic cables between Europe and America again buit European sites esp the BBC are fast, but american ones are slow.

Yes I am experiencing this and at first thought SF was offline. It is just taking an excessively long time to move from page to page, but on page functions work quickly. I also noticed that the page (?s) start with http not https. Don't know if these are older versions from a cache but I have seen this effect on other sites without the s. So the s really means speedy not secure ?

You keep saying this. I asked you a while ago what you mean by a pattern. When are you going to tell me ? I am looking for a means that I can use when I am presented with something I decide whether or not it is a pattern.

I am concerned about cruelty to weevils.

A riffle (noun) is a device for mixing or dividing (it works either way). That is what the holes in the (flat) spoon are for a what makes it a riffle spoon. The spoon is used to lift a largish pile of the dry material (flours, sugar, salt, dried yeast) and sprinkle it over the whole surface of the pile. Repeating this many times and digging deep fully mixes the dry ingredients. I then place the bowl in the mixer, and set the dough hook running. Then I pour in the mixture of warm water, oil and malt. That quickly achieves a decent dough. When dividing people dealing with piles of material (grain, aggregate, wood chips, whatever) use a gridded 'riddle' to properly sample the material to get a sample suitable for statistical testing. The verb riffle also applies to cards.

It is essential to ensure that ingredients are well mixed when bread making. I normally use 3 types of flour, sometimes more. How do you ensure a good mix ? I use a riffle spoon for the dry ingredients (including yeast), see the photo in the mixer bowl, before adding the liquid ingredients.

No not really. People can't loose what they never had. The abacus was 'invented' to carry out calculations that most (99.999 %) of the population could not carry out anyway. Slide rules were in general not accurate enough for other than rough calculation, which was why Seth (and myself amongst others used Chambers Tables. there was in fact a special operation in WWII to steal German tables that were more accurate that any the British had). There were special purpose slide rules that were more accurate but these wereexpensive and bulky, as the accuracy depends on size, so there would only be a few organisations that would have such a thing. One other calculation aid not mentioned is the nomogram. Like a slide rule the acuracy depends upon size, but they were once very useful but have fallen out of fashion. Their USP was that you did not need to know the mechanics of the problem to use one.

This seems rather familiar. Haven't we seen it before ?

+1 Thanks for the info and link. I noted the article said the Finns wanted 'simple'

I think you need to state clearly what you mean by a pattern, and also why numerology is a search for patterns.

Well it seems to say that the sand is heated by heating air and passing that through large bore ducts within the sand. It also says that the designers wish to keep it simple which is perhaps why did not use water/steam as MigL suggests since corrosion is a very real problem with steam at those temperatures and special materials ( probab;ly expensive) are required. Also in the event of a breakdown the pipes will not be damaged by frozen water.

I have received the following notification of an online conference, that is free to attend, about the ethical use of AI Should any member be interested there is more information here https://alfasoft.com/ai-in-research/ And contact details here https://alfasoft.com/about-us/#contact-us I have found alphasoft to be a reputable company in the past.

Which is why I said However there is a difference between being very UK centered and very UK biased. UK centered means the subject matter was largely about what happened to the UK. Not what happened to say China or South America etc at the same time, unless there was an interaction. So it was not biased, just accepting the fact that unless one studied History exclusively one could not cover every where and every time. And yes, despite your protestations, the teachers tried to be objective so the 'British' did not have a 'glorious victory' ove the Dutch under Van Tromp. We spent a lesson learning that the said Admiral fixed a broomstick to his mast and declared he was going to 'sweep the British from the seas', and he nearly succeeded, sailing up the Thames and destroying the poor British fleet. I call that objective acceptance of reality. I said some was objective and your reply is a flat negative. That can only be true if none of it was objective, so how can it become less objective ? I do however agree the qualifying statement about closer to our times and that too was in my post. I really don't see why you should think our lessons in stone age man would not be the best available information at the time (ie objective). What possible motive could modern man have for deliberately falsly presenting the local version of the stone, bronze or iron ages? I really don't understand these figures, or what history might be taught to a 7 or 8 year old in this many minutes.

Social History is one of the big sub categories of history I mentioned. I don't know where you went to school, what sort of school it was, but here are some facts about schools in England, those in Scotland, Wales and Ireland are all different. History was a compulsory subject in primary school, though the subject matter was very limited and piecemeal, such as "who discovered America, Australia etc ?", " Who built the first steam engine?" and many such important social and economic points in History. When I went to the grammar school, History was also compulsory in the first few years, after which it became optional and I had to choose History or Chemistry at some point. Before I chose Chemistry, the syllabus started with stone age Man - we had school trips to Stonehenge and Avebury and the British Museum. The syllabus then worked it's way through the bronse and iron ages and into Saxon, Norman and medieval times. I got as far as the Renaissance before I had to abandon History. As for being objective, or written by Winners. Some of it was objective but very UK centered. So let us objectively examine my 'study' of the history of the Saxons. The Saxons lost the war to the Normans in a very big way. Yet the Normans wrote almost nothing at all about the Saxons or the history before them of the Romans, or the Celts before them. The history of the Normans I learned in school was restricted to the Norman Conquest of England. They did not conquer Wales, Scotland or Ireland. But I have recently watched an american series of programmes (PBS America) about the Normans (nothing to do with them at all, they were neither winners nor loosers in relation to the Normans) and I greatly expanded my knowledge of the Normans and I found out that they created an empire in Europe as far as Sicily. I also learned the reasons they did not conquer the other parts of the UK. Wales and Ireland came by later dynasties, Scotland was left for agreed economic reasons. What is probably but not necessarily true, yet a good 'rule of thumb' would be that the more remote the historian is in time and perhaps also in distance from the subject time the more objective (s)he is likely to be. Certainly they cannot be winners or loosers in a history they have had no part in.

Rather than the knee jerk reaction it would have been better if you had actually considered what I said. I consider your reasoning powers far better than that. I said nothing about a statement. AIs cannot deduce. I have no quarrel with your rephrasing but there are only three terms and I only agree with the term 'write'. Winners imply that History is only about winners and loosers. There is far more to History than that. History, as a subject, is not immutable but develops over time and has many parts/ sub categories. Only some of these categories are about winning and loosing. Edit I see I xposted with exchemist.