Difference between revisions of "Talk:1727: Number of Computers"
(awfully mouthy for someone who can't read instructions) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The line is indicating linear growth, not exponential. Exponential growth would be parabolic, not straight. Tinny 17:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC) | The line is indicating linear growth, not exponential. Exponential growth would be parabolic, not straight. Tinny 17:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
:Note the log scale.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.137|162.158.86.137]] 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC) | :Note the log scale.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.137|162.158.86.137]] 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Did you miss the point about the left axis being logarithmic, or do you need an "explain explain xkcd" page to teach you basic graphing concepts? | ||
| + | flounder {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.136}} | ||
If the implied goal is destroying computers ''in Jupiter'' I’m afraid it is completely impossible for NASA to finish even if we stopped manufacturing them now. Some computers have already been destroyed by other means. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.27|162.158.74.27]] 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC) | If the implied goal is destroying computers ''in Jupiter'' I’m afraid it is completely impossible for NASA to finish even if we stopped manufacturing them now. Some computers have already been destroyed by other means. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.27|162.158.74.27]] 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:27, 12 September 2016
Huh. Just noticed I missed a sentence at the beginning, but I'm too lazy to fix it. Could someone else rewrite my horrible draft? 173.245.50.85 06:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have done that now. ;-) And added a "few" extra details. --Kynde (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The dotted line may also mean that the mission could possibly be extended, as happened to many NASA missions, in which case the destruction would occur later than currently planned. Zetfr 15:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
There's a HAL9000 joke in there all over it. Aasasd (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The line is indicating linear growth, not exponential. Exponential growth would be parabolic, not straight. Tinny 17:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note the log scale.162.158.86.137 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you miss the point about the left axis being logarithmic, or do you need an "explain explain xkcd" page to teach you basic graphing concepts? flounder 108.162.237.136 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
If the implied goal is destroying computers in Jupiter I’m afraid it is completely impossible for NASA to finish even if we stopped manufacturing them now. Some computers have already been destroyed by other means. 162.158.74.27 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Could there be a reference to Lord of the Rings? Having to travel a long distance to destroy an object in the one location it can be destroyed. 108.162.237.133 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Is that really so hard to send probe on Jupiter orbit into Jupiter? I would expect it would likely happen even if not trying, either because orbit not being totally stable or because the probe will hit something. Or get under Io. ... -- Hkmaly (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
