386, 486, good grief! Why on Earth are you keeping that junk? Let me guess...you keep using the same toothbrush until the last scraggly tuft falls out.
13 posts • joined 22 Jun 2011
Re: 80-20 rule?
If you are talking resourcefulness and ingenious ideas, Computers are more creative than humans, they do not have the same limiting assumptions. This has become clear with chess engines. None of the grandmasters today toil away hour after hour trying to come up with ideas. They just have the engines come up with ideas to try in whatever variation they want to play. Chess has become my prep vs your prep, which means my computer's ideas vs your computer's ideas (and what we can remember of that prep). Before computers were GM strength, chess was dying, boring cowardly draw after boring cowardly draw. Since then it has been one crazy idea after another. And what is more, they are incredibly brave. They are what we would like to be: strong, fast, accurate, creative, brave, patient, and long suffering as well. Much of that was born of criticism. We said "But it can't do this...", so programmers worked and it can now do whatever better than the humans often embarrassing better than the best. And in bad situations they are extremely resourceful and scrappy...they do not give an inch they do not have to...no quitting, no loss of concentration while winning, letting a player back in the game, they just grind you to dust.
There are just a very small number of things the engines can't do better than the strongest postal grandmasters. Mostly it is about things that can be approached in a thousand ways but it is clear to the human they will not work because one of several things is required to change the outcome...and the human can identify those while the machines can't yet. So it is mostly recognizing when something is impossible/necessary, it just keeps looking at the billions of possible continuations and permutations. So whee! We are best at quitting and recognizing when some effort is useless. Sometimes that is useful...but it is not a huge thing to boast about.
Will that save your job? Doubtful.
Purely physical critera
Greater than or equal to 2,000 km diameter, roughly spherical (or just not having any diameter under say 1,800 km), and orbiting the Sun...whatever fits, fits. How entertaining its geology is, is subjective, and prone to change as more is learned. Perhaps some mass minimum could be included. It probably should have a density above water (not counting atmosphere). We don't call chunks of ice floating in the ocean ships or islands, so it does not make sense to call a chunk of ice, a planet.
You could have a few other requirements just for logic sake: not man made (or alien made), not already part of a planet, not made of 99% one element or compound, not something that already fits into some other class like: brown dwarf, star, pulsar, black hole, or other stellar object and it must have a sable and enduring orbit. Perhaps an orbital eccentricity smaller in extreme than the distance to the nearest star should be required. Or maybe, just an orbital period less than 1,000 Earth years, though that could be a little restrictive.
Re: What kinds of Poo?
You just have to squeeze very hard. ;)
Here is an experiment I am sure you will appreciate: Shovel about a thousand pounds of the stuff into your car with the windows up on a hot day. Then look for condensation on the windows as the weather cools. Trust me...just do it ;) Maybe only a thimble, but there is still some water. And if that does not work, you can set the stuff on fire and collect the gasses. There will be some water vapor. And maybe you can run a turbine or two with the heat.
That is what we need, a dog poo recycling center...well maybe. Don't even put that thing near me ;) Only people with 3 or more dogs have to live nearby. ;)
Some groundwater predates animals, some volcanic steam, and water from recent comets would be less likely to have passed through an animal, but in general, most water on Earth has passed through several fish at the very least. The mass of the organisms is not what matters...rather how much they take in over time.
Just one human produces 82,150kg of crap in a lifetime. We eat fairly nutritious stuff. Many animals have to eat stuff that is much less nutrient dense and produce far more for the mass equivalent.
Not to worry, H2O is H2O...as long as it has the right number of protons, neutrons, and electrons. It could have gone through a billion anuses and it would be no different.
I bet the retention rate of XP Pro 64-bit are even higher than XP. With a few modifications it is the best I've used. I have a much nicer computer but I am using the XP Pro most of the time even though the hardware can give me issues. XP Pro 64-bit is going for around $400 now. No one want to let go of that one.
All measures should be based on the elephant. Volume, liquid or solid, would be the volume of an elephant. "Yes, I'd like a milli-phant of mayo." Air pressure: the force an elephant can blow out its trunk. Umm this tire says inflate to 15 Eleblasts. Time: based on elephant gestational units...the Elelaunch. Hah, I am only 21 Elelaunches old. Shorter periods are based on the rate of chewing: Elechomps. Weight well obviously Elebut. "Honny, your not even 3 centielibuts." Distance the length of an elephant, trunk to tail: the Elelink. IQ can be replaced with elefiknows.