Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarke
Yes. For smaller molecules it's about 3 orders of magnitude. So? What is a cell, if not a nanomachine?
|
Actually, it's not. Cells still can not arbitrarily manipulate elements as you believe.
Quote:
|
I bet someone's already come up with an algorithm that lets you "break" as soon as you've received the bare minimum amount of data. If they haven't, it's not going to take long for someone to do so. Regardless, you've conjured an order of magnitude: it costs the RDA $7,500/bit.
|
Again, that isn't possible. ECCs still require a value for every bit in order to calculate, and the larger the number of error bits, the far more likely it is that the entire packet has to be thrown out.
Quote:
|
And since the major cost there is going to be scarcity, bringing 10 m/billion of the same thing is going to cost less than $7.5k a bit.
|
Yet it is directly stated to cost 7,500/bit. You can not avoid that - do you even have any idea how much manufacturing x billion of something so complex would cost anyway?
Quote:
Actually, I'm not even bother going to bring 10 billion particle-pairs. It'd be easy enough to entangle a whole mol of photons/electrons. Might take a little while, but we're waiting to generate the fuel for our spaceship anyway. Now, if I've got a 1/10000 error rate per channel, and I have 6x10^23 channels...
|
I have already pointed out why this will not work, more than once. The success rate of getting the particle to adopt the desired state is so low that the higher the particle count, the more you are boosting interference - it would not uniformly apply or fail on every single particle at once. Dealing with multiple particle sets in a single encoding also adds huge amounts of complexity in terms of reading the resulting particle from each.
Quote:
|
The only way I'm multiplying anything is if I'm bringing more humans than the original plan involved bringing, which I'm not. I'm only bringing enough to maintain the robots.
|
...not to mention the supplies needed, the support staff for those humans (everything from maintenance to food), the marines you completely ignored, some kind of administration presence.
Quote:
So you're saying...
(mining machines + large mercenary squad + Avatars) < (mining machines + few technicians + Avatars)
...How does that work?
|
You're ignoring my point that without any defence, any mining will be easily countered. The avatars were for the Na'vi, but are not going to do anything with an 'angtsik.
Quote:
|
...Because you program your defenses to only shoot at things actively shooting at you? I thought that was obvious.
|
I really don't think you understand the logic of complexity here.
Quote:
|
Last time I checked, radio interference was only produced by changing magnetic fields, and if your planetary magnetic field is changing significantly, you've got bigger problems than EM interference.
|
Also, via moving through one.
Quote:
|
And again, shielded robots will still be cheaper than humans; you can build shielded robots on-site.
|
So now you need large quantities of rare-earths as well. What makes you believe there even might be any there?
Quote:
1) Easy. I mean, alpha/beta/gamma wavicles aren't hard to generate in large quantity.
2) Indistinguishable from acceleration. See centrifuge comment earlier.
3) ...And what does that involve? Radiation, pressure, heat. We've got all those covered.
4) Again, easy.
|
Emphasis on a macroscopic scale.
Quote:
|
They've known about unobtanium, what, 30 years? Longer?
|
EXACTLY. Thank you. Based on your 'it will always take 80 years to synthesise anything' claim, there is still ~40-50 years to go even if that was true.
I'm finding it hard to argue with someone as logically inconsistent as you.
You go from "they should be able to produce it" with no justification to "it will take 80 years form discovery" to "they have known of it for at least 30 years so they should be producing it". All three premises are flawed and you are jumping between them as you see fit, backing further into a logical contradiction each time I counter the fallacious reasoning behind each other than the second.
Quote:
|
And simply, the method doesn't exist because it would spoil Cameron's story. There's no in-universe explanation given or possible.
|
No, you just want one to exist because it would create the story you want to see.
Quote:
|
They know about it because they saw the emission spectrum from Pandora.
|
Source?
Quote:
|
And, economically, "nothing" is the logical choice. No sane business would even touch the ISV possibility until it was proven to be impossible to synthesize Unobtanium.
|
...which is has so far in that all attempts, if they have even reached a practical attempt - which is extremely unlikely - have failed.