heh, and I have a extensive back-catalogue of Hawking scatology.zip accident wrote:I'm not a particularly big Hawking fan, I think he's probably right, but I'm not fanatical about him.
http://www.yakyak.org/viewtopic.php?f=2 ... 0&start=75

heh, and I have a extensive back-catalogue of Hawking scatology.zip accident wrote:I'm not a particularly big Hawking fan, I think he's probably right, but I'm not fanatical about him.
It'll be fun to read it from inside an offline secret human hideout 100 years from now.Dio wrote:On the AI topic, New Scientist this week has a far better rebuttal of the AI fears.
That's not speculation. It's a threat.KlaxonCow wrote:I stopped taking Hawking so seriously - at least outside of his specialist subject - when he started talking about "killer AI" and such.
As Schiaparelli descended under its parachute, its radar Doppler altimeter functioned correctly and the measurements were included in the guidance, navigation and control system. However, saturation – maximum measurement – of the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) had occurred shortly after the parachute deployment. The IMU measures the rotation rates of the vehicle. Its output was generally as predicted except for this event, which persisted for about one second – longer than would be expected.
When merged into the navigation system, the erroneous information generated an estimated altitude that was negative – that is, below ground level. This in turn successively triggered a premature release of the parachute and the backshell, a brief firing of the braking thrusters and finally activation of the on-ground systems as if Schiaparelli had already landed. In reality, the vehicle was still at an altitude of around 3.7 km.

A point I raised on page 158... to dampen Zip's ardour.gumboot wrote:Just how empty is deep space? With an enormous sail traveling at a ridiculous speed what kind of drag does that represent?

