Those values might not seem significant without seeing the accompanying data graphed out; however, they may represent certain standard deviations or some other useful statistical metric.
Every one-year-old I know craps their pants, like, twice a day at least. How gross is that? They expect us to clean up their mess. They are out of control; it's like they don't understand the pain they cause.
These people can't be trusted.
And teenagers? They're just old infants. It's not a stretch to imagine that hoody-wearing teen hanging out in front of the shop with a full load in his diaper, just waiting for you to take care of it, the lazy bastard.
And adults? They're just extra-old infants, and they have taken the problem to a new extreme that needs to be dealt with: They are making new pant-crappers all the time. They have found a cheap way to multiply; this is no longer a zero-sum game! We need to take action!
Oh, hey, how about a tweeter playing 25kHz? Yeah, that'll work! Yay!
>>You would have thought that people would have learned more from Dr. Martin Luther King, but I guess he was just some kind of weird ineffectual idealist, right?
I have a feeling that this will be misinterpreted, but... You know, Dr. MLK is dead, too? So is president Kennedy. So is Gandhi. So are a lot of people who upset the power base, regardless of violence.
I'm not advocating violence here, but your argument sort of falls apart when you claim that attempting a violent overthrow will get you killed, and then use a non-violent activist who was assassinated to prove your point.
Gov't is good at funding things that don't guarantee a ROI. Tang, for example, or nuclear weapons. Or ARPAnet. You know what I mean. This lighting technology seems to be one of those things that the gov't shouldn't be spending as much of my tax money funding. They would be reinventing the wheel since so many commercial labs are working on the same problem, and with a huge motivation: Profit.
The money would be better spent advertising high-efficiency appliances and lighting to (heretofore ignorant) consumers instead of researching new devices that no one will buy.
There is the Air National Guard. You'd get all the same training as your activity duty counterparts, and depending on your level of commitment (how much of your time you spend at the ANG- one weekend a month, or full-time), you get a very nice education package. GI Bill, tuition reimbursment, student loan repayment program, and many states provide additional benefits on top of the federal ones. Also, if you serve in a combat zone, you will receive VA benefits. That is not hard to do in todays ops tempo. A bonus for guardsmen is that you choose you base; if you live right next to one, you can work there. No moving around like the active duty.
I am a geek; plus, I am nothing like the flag-waving bigots that many slashdotters seem to think the military looks for, and I love my job.
It's a personal decision. The only reason I even brought it up is that many people simply don't know what options are available. I would never ask someone to look into the military unless they brought it up; I understand the complex emotions and beliefs surrounding the profession of arms.
Our comm section is awesome- they have a locked vault that they work in, and they get all the toys. Right now they're installing fiber all over the base. Good times.
That's ridiculous. Why not say that the McDonald's fry cook is the customer, because after all it is he who demands new fries from the supply guy Jerry for the fat americans to consume...
The DoD is the customer. I just work there. Every country I can think of has some type of force of people with guns, even if it's only police.
And I did mean victim. Ever been shot at? Then you know what a victim is. Ever went shopping for military weapons? Neither have I.
I'm so god damned sick of feeling like I need to defend my job/country/state/gender to low-lifes on the internet. You go do something substantial with your life and then let me tear it down like a sullen teenager. Yay!
You are correct, but I was talking about dying. It's also possible to survive grenades, V2's, missiles, etc. as long as they don't perforate you in the wrong places.
We were discussing the ethics of killing someone 'before they know what hit them.'
How is that different from any other way of dying in modern warfare?
Bullets, bombs, missiles, grenades, lasers, modern cannons, etc.: You will be dead before you know what's coming.
Arrows, poison gas, mortars, knives, crowbars, flames, etc.: You may have a split second or so to understand what is about to happen to you. Then you die.
No fair calling out radar or other sophisticated sensing systems, here. You could know that a V2 was coming through intel or visually or through crude radar even during WWII. You didn't have much time, no, but RF signals travel much faster than a V2. Even then: If you are the target coordinate of pretty much any modern weapon, you are on the fast track to fine-pink-mist-ification.
War is hell. Nothing can change that. Killing has become our most efficient national product. From the standpoint of a potential victim, I think I'd rather be instantly killed than mortally wounded so that I can spend a few days in agony before I die and my blood and organs are infected beyond use to anyone else.
Frankly, I don't want to see the V2 or missile or bomb coming for me. I want either an early warning system that would allow me enough time to have a chance of survival (like we have already, the phalanx or CIWS- it has saved my ass); or else I want to go from a state of stupefied boredom to dead in the time it takes a fast explosive shockwave to dissociate my neurons.
There, I said it. Call me a coward, but I've actually dealt with the whole idea of staring death in the eye, and it is over-rated.
Then why don't they start their own super-awesome colleges, where everyone goes to learn while the stupid americans go to Texas U to smoke pot and fuck?
Americans obviously have no fucking clue when it comes to tech and education; if we did, then people would come from around the world to attend our colleges. Oh wait...
The individuals may be intelligent, but why can't their own country put that resource to work by creating their own schools?
I love international collaboration in all colleges (not just u.s.), but I wish that the transaction wasn't so one-sided when it comes to china-u.s. And before the free-marketers chime in, this applies to state colleges, too (read: my tax dollars).
You could be describing slashdot here. Or musicians, or politicians, or anyone. Almost everyone has opinions on those topics that you mentioned, and almost everyone thinks that they are absolutely right about certain things.
Some actors are douchebags, yes. But it's not as if they have to jostle and fight for air time to proselytize their latest cause. We (people, not ME of course...~) seek out actors. They are familiar faces to us, they are famous, we live interesting lives through the roles they play in films. If a famous person shows up at a rally, their face will be the face shown on the news and in the magazines. I don't think it's fair to say that freakin' Bob T. Famous is being a douchebag trying to tell me how to live my life when he was at a rally with a thousand other (non-famous) people who ALSO believe they know how to run my life better than I do. He gets press time for the rally because he is the familiar face there. They could show Mary M. Obscure for the publicity shot- great, 15 people know Mary. Everyone wonders who the hell this Mary is.
Actors are people, and like anyone else they are entitled to their opinions. If you want as much air time as them, then get famous or buy a news station or show your nipple during half time or something.
This is really meant more as a point-of-use generator, not something that would be connected to the grid. The most efficient source of power would be upcoming super-capacitors, but there is a point beyond which carrying additional units would return less benefit- fatigue, primarily, would direct how many units could be carried.
This knee generator is meant to replace bulky and expensive batteries for people not connected to the grid. This would be useful in the field as well as in normal civilian life, where it's not always convenient to be sitting next to a power outlet.
An average person walking slowly will burn about 200 kilocalories per hour. To generate one watt/hour (creating one watt for one hour) a person would expend 860 calories. Since this device is using the generator as a brake on the leg, a person should need less than the 860 calories to actually create the watt-hour. Even if we go with the full 860 calories, we're only looking at 200.86 kilocalories. That could be restored to the body with one tenth of an MRE or a pack of M&Ms or a muffin or something. A watt-hour is not a terribly large amount of energy to generate; it only seems like a lot because when it's used inefficiently, it won't get much work done.
As I said in another post, I'd pay a healthy sum for this device for field use.
Wouldn't the exoskeleton be useful in large part for supporting and actuating the legs (In order to carry a heavier load)? It would be like like hooking up a generator to an electric motor. At best you could recover some of the energy used for braking or slowing, but you would still need batteries.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this gadget. There is a good chance that the stabilizing function of this generator far outweighs the extra pressure exerted on the joints.
>>Furthermore if I was a hiker or soldier walking all day, I wouldn't want extra stuff attached to my leg actually impeding my leg movements for a few extra watts of electrical energy.
Would you rather have 10 pounds of batteries to power your radio, stove, lights, PSP, etc., or 1-2 pounds of knee brace that actually stabilized your gait? I AM a soldier and a hiker, and I would pay this device's weight in gold if it was as reliable and lightweight as they make it out to be. OK- maybe not gold, but some metal in the $100/lb area.
Try starting a business without taking out loans. Unless you are already wealthy, that will be impossible. And, according to you, the business would fail since it was spending money it did not have.
However, loans can be a good thing. If you take a loan out at 10% interest, and that money is spent on new equipment, for example, that nets a return of 15%, you just made a 5% return on debt. I could take out a loan for college that would pay for itself over and over again if I did not already get benefits from my gov't service.
The gov't stands to do very well on debt profits. Look at our return on investment for programs like NASA and the education grants. The problem with our CURRENT deficit spending is that it is going towards a money pit- that is, there will be no tangible returns on our invasion of Iraq or other countries. The money that does make it into american hands is very centralized (in the hands of only a few corporations) and will not benefit the taxpayers.
So while I don't think we should spend loan money on war or pointless gov't programs, there are benefits to deficit spending. It allows us to grow faster than we could with only internal growth.
>>Furthermore, I wished the definition of tolerance to include: "respecting all human rights to and for all people, including freedom of speech and expression."
Respect is not a human right. Again, it comes down to actions, not beliefs. The gov't cannot stop you from disliking blacks, but it can sure stop you from discriminating against them during hiring or firing.
And again, the definition of tolerance cannot include respect. They are technically mutually exclusive concepts. If you respect something, there is no sense in saying that you tolerate it. You don't tolerate something that you like, you embrace it. If you don't think there's a difference, try telling your significant other that you 'tolerate' them instead of telling them that you 'respect' them.
>>I look forward to a day when religious tolerance and freedom means respecting all human rights to and for all people, including freedom of speech and expression.
That's either a tautology or it's wrong. 'Tolerance' does not mean 'respect.'
Tolerance: The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behaviors that one does not necessarily agree with.
Respect: A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
I tolerate christianity. I also tolerate islam, crying babies, cats, jazz, Grain Belt beer, etc. I respect my mother, Napoleon, Tom Waits, Carl Sagan, etc.
Tolerance does not mean, and will never mean, respect. You cannot force or even ask someone to respect something. Respect is unenforceable, subjective, and irrational. Tolerance is enforceable, objective, and rational (In the framework of law).
I would like to point out that thoughts are not crimes, actions are. My thoughts and my actions are often 180 degrees out of phase with each other, thank goodness. And my actions make me a very nice- if reserved- and gentle person.
What it boils down to is that the U.S. is a big country with a powerful economy. When China, the U.S., India, etc sneeze, the world notices. That is not to say that any of those countries are 'the best'; I'm not even trying to imply that. What I am saying is that, for better or worse, the U.S. does have an influence on the world if only because of its size and momentum. Look at what happened to the world market when Wall Street hiccuped the other week.
There are influences beyond simple war-making- culture, money, tech, medicine, and so on. Also, there are Americans who pay attention to the rest of the world. It might seem like a low number to you, but you need to remember that most of us live hundreds, and more often thousands, of miles away from other countries. Many Americans don't know much about Belgium because Belgium plays no role in their life. If you are European, you have an advantage when it comes to cultural exchange.
And there are many, many people from other countries who depend on what the U.S. does in order to make a living. That is not to say that other countries aren't also important. I don't think I should have to give equal time to every other country when I'm talking about the U.S. When we talk about France, we'll talk about France without assuming that every good thing said about France is at the expense of $my_country.
I think most slashdotters welcome your point of view in a discussion, but you are very combative about asserting it. If you don't want to read about American politics, then skip the stories in the politics section. Which reminds me- why were you even posting in that discussion in the first place if you are so indifferent to it?
I'm willing to bet that Obama has read the entire thing, since he played a part in trying to modify it in the senate. OTOH, he still voted for it.
I disagree with you. I don't need to know how to grow grapes to enjoy wine. I don't need to read every page of the PATRIOT act to disagree with the parts I have read.
You really ought to care more about who supports the act rather than who has nothing better to do than read a huge bill. It only takes one sentence to make a bill evil, and you would have to read the entire thing to make sure it was worthwhile. Guess what would happen first?
Slashdot Mirror
Those values might not seem significant without seeing the accompanying data graphed out; however, they may represent certain standard deviations or some other useful statistical metric.
-b
>>Rush is a lot more chill, frankly
Im in ur slasdhotz, adjektiving ur verbs!
-b
>>Directly attacking an age group is insane .
Every one-year-old I know craps their pants, like, twice a day at least. How gross is that? They expect us to clean up their mess. They are out of control; it's like they don't understand the pain they cause.
These people can't be trusted.
And teenagers? They're just old infants. It's not a stretch to imagine that hoody-wearing teen hanging out in front of the shop with a full load in his diaper, just waiting for you to take care of it, the lazy bastard.
And adults? They're just extra-old infants, and they have taken the problem to a new extreme that needs to be dealt with: They are making new pant-crappers all the time. They have found a cheap way to multiply; this is no longer a zero-sum game! We need to take action!
Oh, hey, how about a tweeter playing 25kHz? Yeah, that'll work! Yay!
-b
>>You would have thought that people would have learned more from Dr. Martin Luther King, but I guess he was just some kind of weird ineffectual idealist, right?
I have a feeling that this will be misinterpreted, but... You know, Dr. MLK is dead, too? So is president Kennedy. So is Gandhi. So are a lot of people who upset the power base, regardless of violence.
I'm not advocating violence here, but your argument sort of falls apart when you claim that attempting a violent overthrow will get you killed, and then use a non-violent activist who was assassinated to prove your point.
Best,
-b
Is it an XOR gate or a XNOR gate?
-b
Gov't is good at funding things that don't guarantee a ROI. Tang, for example, or nuclear weapons. Or ARPAnet. You know what I mean. This lighting technology seems to be one of those things that the gov't shouldn't be spending as much of my tax money funding. They would be reinventing the wheel since so many commercial labs are working on the same problem, and with a huge motivation: Profit.
The money would be better spent advertising high-efficiency appliances and lighting to (heretofore ignorant) consumers instead of researching new devices that no one will buy.
-b
Sodium vapor lamps get anywhere from 50-200 lm/W.
-b
>>kinda like the Army Reserve, but for geeks.
There is the Air National Guard. You'd get all the same training as your activity duty counterparts, and depending on your level of commitment (how much of your time you spend at the ANG- one weekend a month, or full-time), you get a very nice education package. GI Bill, tuition reimbursment, student loan repayment program, and many states provide additional benefits on top of the federal ones. Also, if you serve in a combat zone, you will receive VA benefits. That is not hard to do in todays ops tempo. A bonus for guardsmen is that you choose you base; if you live right next to one, you can work there. No moving around like the active duty.
I am a geek; plus, I am nothing like the flag-waving bigots that many slashdotters seem to think the military looks for, and I love my job.
It's a personal decision. The only reason I even brought it up is that many people simply don't know what options are available. I would never ask someone to look into the military unless they brought it up; I understand the complex emotions and beliefs surrounding the profession of arms.
Our comm section is awesome- they have a locked vault that they work in, and they get all the toys. Right now they're installing fiber all over the base. Good times.
-b
I usually would say the ear lobes. It depends on how kinky you are, I suppose.
-b
That's ridiculous. Why not say that the McDonald's fry cook is the customer, because after all it is he who demands new fries from the supply guy Jerry for the fat americans to consume...
The DoD is the customer. I just work there. Every country I can think of has some type of force of people with guns, even if it's only police.
And I did mean victim. Ever been shot at? Then you know what a victim is. Ever went shopping for military weapons? Neither have I.
I'm so god damned sick of feeling like I need to defend my job/country/state/gender to low-lifes on the internet. You go do something substantial with your life and then let me tear it down like a sullen teenager. Yay!
-b
On the other hand the ad target market (male, 25-44) and the slashdot target market almost eclipse each other...
-b
You are correct, but I was talking about dying. It's also possible to survive grenades, V2's, missiles, etc. as long as they don't perforate you in the wrong places.
We were discussing the ethics of killing someone 'before they know what hit them.'
-b
How is that different from any other way of dying in modern warfare?
Bullets, bombs, missiles, grenades, lasers, modern cannons, etc.: You will be dead before you know what's coming.
Arrows, poison gas, mortars, knives, crowbars, flames, etc.: You may have a split second or so to understand what is about to happen to you. Then you die.
No fair calling out radar or other sophisticated sensing systems, here. You could know that a V2 was coming through intel or visually or through crude radar even during WWII. You didn't have much time, no, but RF signals travel much faster than a V2. Even then: If you are the target coordinate of pretty much any modern weapon, you are on the fast track to fine-pink-mist-ification.
War is hell. Nothing can change that. Killing has become our most efficient national product. From the standpoint of a potential victim, I think I'd rather be instantly killed than mortally wounded so that I can spend a few days in agony before I die and my blood and organs are infected beyond use to anyone else.
Frankly, I don't want to see the V2 or missile or bomb coming for me. I want either an early warning system that would allow me enough time to have a chance of survival (like we have already, the phalanx or CIWS- it has saved my ass); or else I want to go from a state of stupefied boredom to dead in the time it takes a fast explosive shockwave to dissociate my neurons.
There, I said it. Call me a coward, but I've actually dealt with the whole idea of staring death in the eye, and it is over-rated.
-b
Then why don't they start their own super-awesome colleges, where everyone goes to learn while the stupid americans go to Texas U to smoke pot and fuck?
Americans obviously have no fucking clue when it comes to tech and education; if we did, then people would come from around the world to attend our colleges. Oh wait...
The individuals may be intelligent, but why can't their own country put that resource to work by creating their own schools?
I love international collaboration in all colleges (not just u.s.), but I wish that the transaction wasn't so one-sided when it comes to china-u.s. And before the free-marketers chime in, this applies to state colleges, too (read: my tax dollars).
-the b
You could be describing slashdot here. Or musicians, or politicians, or anyone. Almost everyone has opinions on those topics that you mentioned, and almost everyone thinks that they are absolutely right about certain things.
Some actors are douchebags, yes. But it's not as if they have to jostle and fight for air time to proselytize their latest cause. We (people, not ME of course...~) seek out actors. They are familiar faces to us, they are famous, we live interesting lives through the roles they play in films. If a famous person shows up at a rally, their face will be the face shown on the news and in the magazines. I don't think it's fair to say that freakin' Bob T. Famous is being a douchebag trying to tell me how to live my life when he was at a rally with a thousand other (non-famous) people who ALSO believe they know how to run my life better than I do. He gets press time for the rally because he is the familiar face there. They could show Mary M. Obscure for the publicity shot- great, 15 people know Mary. Everyone wonders who the hell this Mary is.
Actors are people, and like anyone else they are entitled to their opinions. If you want as much air time as them, then get famous or buy a news station or show your nipple during half time or something.
I'm just saying.
-b
My bad.
This is really meant more as a point-of-use generator, not something that would be connected to the grid. The most efficient source of power would be upcoming super-capacitors, but there is a point beyond which carrying additional units would return less benefit- fatigue, primarily, would direct how many units could be carried.
This knee generator is meant to replace bulky and expensive batteries for people not connected to the grid. This would be useful in the field as well as in normal civilian life, where it's not always convenient to be sitting next to a power outlet.
An average person walking slowly will burn about 200 kilocalories per hour. To generate one watt/hour (creating one watt for one hour) a person would expend 860 calories. Since this device is using the generator as a brake on the leg, a person should need less than the 860 calories to actually create the watt-hour. Even if we go with the full 860 calories, we're only looking at 200.86 kilocalories. That could be restored to the body with one tenth of an MRE or a pack of M&Ms or a muffin or something. A watt-hour is not a terribly large amount of energy to generate; it only seems like a lot because when it's used inefficiently, it won't get much work done.
As I said in another post, I'd pay a healthy sum for this device for field use.
-b
Wouldn't the exoskeleton be useful in large part for supporting and actuating the legs (In order to carry a heavier load)? It would be like like hooking up a generator to an electric motor. At best you could recover some of the energy used for braking or slowing, but you would still need batteries.
-b
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this gadget. There is a good chance that the stabilizing function of this generator far outweighs the extra pressure exerted on the joints.
>>Furthermore if I was a hiker or soldier walking all day, I wouldn't want extra stuff attached to my leg actually impeding my leg movements for a few extra watts of electrical energy.
Would you rather have 10 pounds of batteries to power your radio, stove, lights, PSP, etc., or 1-2 pounds of knee brace that actually stabilized your gait? I AM a soldier and a hiker, and I would pay this device's weight in gold if it was as reliable and lightweight as they make it out to be. OK- maybe not gold, but some metal in the $100/lb area.
-b
Yeah, we should stop doing organ transplants, too. Human tissue should be treated as remains, not resources.
-b
Try starting a business without taking out loans. Unless you are already wealthy, that will be impossible. And, according to you, the business would fail since it was spending money it did not have.
However, loans can be a good thing. If you take a loan out at 10% interest, and that money is spent on new equipment, for example, that nets a return of 15%, you just made a 5% return on debt. I could take out a loan for college that would pay for itself over and over again if I did not already get benefits from my gov't service.
The gov't stands to do very well on debt profits. Look at our return on investment for programs like NASA and the education grants. The problem with our CURRENT deficit spending is that it is going towards a money pit- that is, there will be no tangible returns on our invasion of Iraq or other countries. The money that does make it into american hands is very centralized (in the hands of only a few corporations) and will not benefit the taxpayers.
So while I don't think we should spend loan money on war or pointless gov't programs, there are benefits to deficit spending. It allows us to grow faster than we could with only internal growth.
-b
>>Furthermore, I wished the definition of tolerance to include: "respecting all human rights to and for all people, including freedom of speech and expression."
Respect is not a human right. Again, it comes down to actions, not beliefs. The gov't cannot stop you from disliking blacks, but it can sure stop you from discriminating against them during hiring or firing.
And again, the definition of tolerance cannot include respect. They are technically mutually exclusive concepts. If you respect something, there is no sense in saying that you tolerate it. You don't tolerate something that you like, you embrace it. If you don't think there's a difference, try telling your significant other that you 'tolerate' them instead of telling them that you 'respect' them.
This is turning into a semantic argument.
-b
I have to take issue with this one sentence:
>>I look forward to a day when religious tolerance and freedom means respecting all human rights to and for all people, including freedom of speech and expression.
That's either a tautology or it's wrong. 'Tolerance' does not mean 'respect.'
Tolerance: The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behaviors that one does not necessarily agree with.
Respect: A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
I tolerate christianity. I also tolerate islam, crying babies, cats, jazz, Grain Belt beer, etc. I respect my mother, Napoleon, Tom Waits, Carl Sagan, etc.
Tolerance does not mean, and will never mean, respect. You cannot force or even ask someone to respect something. Respect is unenforceable, subjective, and irrational. Tolerance is enforceable, objective, and rational (In the framework of law).
I would like to point out that thoughts are not crimes, actions are. My thoughts and my actions are often 180 degrees out of phase with each other, thank goodness. And my actions make me a very nice- if reserved- and gentle person.
-b
What it boils down to is that the U.S. is a big country with a powerful economy. When China, the U.S., India, etc sneeze, the world notices. That is not to say that any of those countries are 'the best'; I'm not even trying to imply that. What I am saying is that, for better or worse, the U.S. does have an influence on the world if only because of its size and momentum. Look at what happened to the world market when Wall Street hiccuped the other week.
There are influences beyond simple war-making- culture, money, tech, medicine, and so on. Also, there are Americans who pay attention to the rest of the world. It might seem like a low number to you, but you need to remember that most of us live hundreds, and more often thousands, of miles away from other countries. Many Americans don't know much about Belgium because Belgium plays no role in their life. If you are European, you have an advantage when it comes to cultural exchange.
And there are many, many people from other countries who depend on what the U.S. does in order to make a living. That is not to say that other countries aren't also important. I don't think I should have to give equal time to every other country when I'm talking about the U.S. When we talk about France, we'll talk about France without assuming that every good thing said about France is at the expense of $my_country.
I think most slashdotters welcome your point of view in a discussion, but you are very combative about asserting it. If you don't want to read about American politics, then skip the stories in the politics section. Which reminds me- why were you even posting in that discussion in the first place if you are so indifferent to it?
-b
I'm willing to bet that Obama has read the entire thing, since he played a part in trying to modify it in the senate. OTOH, he still voted for it.
I disagree with you. I don't need to know how to grow grapes to enjoy wine. I don't need to read every page of the PATRIOT act to disagree with the parts I have read.
You really ought to care more about who supports the act rather than who has nothing better to do than read a huge bill. It only takes one sentence to make a bill evil, and you would have to read the entire thing to make sure it was worthwhile. Guess what would happen first?
-b