Troon wrote : they are trying to enforce laws that are currently being broken. Seems reasonable to me
The issue, if you had not noticed, is whether it should be BT's responsibility to do the enforcement. Seems to me that if anyone is to be pursued on this it should be the owner of Newzbin, not BT.
Relayman wrote:-
Sorry, I'm not responding to AC any more. It's not that hard to set up an account with a handle.
Surely it should depend on the nature of the AC post.
Does it occur to you that someone might post as AC because they are giving some inside information (like from within a company) but do not want to be identified by their boss or someone else who might recognise them from their handle? I have done this a few times myself. Posters also might want to remain AC for the more frank and open posts when discussions of girlfriends (or lack of) are involved, as happens on/. occasionally.
Yes I know someone might be able to find out if they persisted enough (tracing network activity within your company network for example) but mostly they would not be bothered.
Bussdriver wrote : The way we define race is political; not genetic. There is so little difference genetically it doesn't deserve any time. I can have more DNA in common with some Asian guy than my white neighbor
That sounds like saying my wife has more in common with the fridge than with me because, unlike me, they are both 5'2" tall and serve beer.
I understand that humans have DNA similarities with sponges and trees too.
Politically Incorrect as it may be to point out, clearly there are significant and consistent physical differences between races and these differences are inherited, like the fact that only black people are prone to sickle cell anaemia. The mechanism for this must be in the DNA. If the difference appears to be little in the biochemical sense then I would conclude that these "little" differences are actually more significant than you give them credit. Rather like the way that a single bit difference among millions in computer code can completely change the way the software works.
What tosh. It was not "scientists" who thought up these terms (Chinaman, Nigger, Wop, Honky, Mullato, Eurasian) but ordinary people.
Like it or not, people can be placed in these categories (although you may prefer different names), just as white people can be divided into blonds, redheads, etc. Most black people do not hesitate to identify themselves as black, but find "Nigger" objectionable, and I don't blame them. As for "scientific cause" there are scientific differences, though the liberals never admit it. The very skin pigment is clearly measurable for example, Oriental men are less likely to get prostate cancer, and black people are more prone to sickle cell disease. Skull shapes are obviously different on average. I am talking about averages and there are always exceptions of course. These characteristics are clearly carried genetically because offspring tend to have the same characeristics. These are just facts and nothing to do with whether they are a "good" thing or not.
I remember a TV programme (in UK) on the evolution of the human species. It went through the Lake Rudolf finds - you know the stuff - Neanderthal Man etc and then went on to the accepted common ancestor of modern man, Homo Sapiens. I thought that it would now get interesting as to how they would explain the evolution of the modern races. But with a sort of shrug, we were told like "Hey Presto! we have modern man!". End of story - they did not have the guts to tackle how the different races arose. These days no-one would dare to do any research or even make any suggestion on the matter.
I am no anthropologist, but I guess that differently located human clusters from the common ancestor started to evolve away from each other, but not enough to become separate species. But do we ever see any coverage of this verboten subject? - No.
Shadow99: People from Africa, or China were considered backwards and not 'worthy' of being called human.
Tosh again. The British Empire at least recognised civilisation when it saw it. At times, especially in the 1700's, there were crazes in the UK for Indian and Chinese things and styles - the Brighton Pavillion is an example from that time. The Brits did not see much value in black African culture though, and tried to "Anglicise" them, which is why modern black people in the west are more "western" than Indians or Chinese; for example they are more likely to be Christian.
Hartree said : Even Geert Wilders (noted anti-immigrant Dutch politician) is condemning him at this point.
It has come to something when it is assumed that someone against immigration would be expected to support mass murder.
It goes to show what a distorted view some socialists have of the world. Suggest that immigration might be anything less than the best thing that that ever happened and they seem to lose all sense of reason and start foaming at the mouth about Fascism and a Mr H who departed from history about 60 years ago. While claiming to be liberal they suppress any mention of the subject, although it is an elephant in the room, other than in pre-approved positive soundbites.
There are all sorts of good reasons against immigration. That is why most countries, at least in the west, including the USA and the UK, have restrictions on it even if they do not ban it completely.
When I learned to drive, I was told that a fundamental principle was not to exceed a speed at which you could comfortable stop in the distance you can see is clear.
AC said:- "Believe me, corruption is much easier to deal with in the private sector than in government."
No it is not . One reason is that if people discover that their government is doing something corrupt they howl with indignation, because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that the government is supposed to be their agent. OTOH, with the private sector they (people like you?) shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, that's business, you can't make omelettes without cracking eggs, they have to make a profit somehow." I hear people talking like that about Microsoft (for example) when their corrupt practices are pointed out, and they said it about Rupert Murdoch for years, until last week.
Also, in these days of international business, sub-sub-sub-sub-contracting, and offshoring, we are usually told that corrupt businesses are legally out of reach - spammers, crappy Chinese tool companies, and Murdoch's companies for example.
it comes from people being forced out of rural areas and into concentrated centers because of politics, economics, warfare, and corruption.
why are rural areas of america emptying of people? there are no jobs, and people cannot afford to live there. they move to cities.
I guess by "it" you mean the overcrowding in cities. I am talking about what I see in the UK, and I assure you that there is no emptying of rural areas here these days. There was in the 18th and 19th centuries, but not now. You do not have to go far in (what was) the countryside in the UK to see new houses being built by the 1000's.
UK readers might take a look by the M4, Jcn 15-16 as Swindon expands into green fields, and around Andover, Basingstoke, Brackley. In my lifetime new "housing" cities have sprung up in what were totally rural areas, usually named after a village or small town it has swallowed : Milton Keynes, Thornbury, Nailsea, Cambourne. I am just naming some places which I pass. Away from any town or village, former stables, cowsheds and barns are converted (if they are of brick or stone - it's an industry) to commuter homes (adding rural traffic). The cows and corn are moved to pre-fab buildings - if they survive, as the farmer makes more money from the rents than he ever did farming.
why are there millions in refugee camps in africa? because of wars, often funded by corrupt 'developed' nations to extract natural resources and prop up dictators. [etc etc]
Not sure what this has to do with the subject of world overcrowding. You seem to have a thing about corrupt dictators.
why is england full of immigrants? because the corrupt nature of countries like Iran or Pakistan doesnt allow people to escape poverty there, so they flee.
The immigrants I meet were never that poor (I do not think the poorest can afford the ticket) and not at all "oppressed", although they usually come expecting more sex and money. Many, or most, are disappointed. I know one with a degree who works now as a cleaner. When I ask why they came the answer is "To get on I needed to learn English, so came to England", but now they seem stuck here. To be honest, I do not think most of them really know why they come : more like a feeling they want to be near the centre of things, in a world sense.
One came (from Czechoslovakia, 1968) for the much vaunted "freedom". He described his feeling on reaching the UK as : first euphoria (lasted 4 weeks), then disappointment (that he had no more freedom in UK than where he came from, in many ways less), and finally the resignation that he had been chasing a chimera. As for democracy, he said it was western bullshit that the then communist Czech was a single party state : their elections offered a wide choice of parties, but all had virtually the same policies - just like the UK then.
none of these migrations are caused by 'too many people', they are caused by social and political choices made by the leaders of society - - to allow corruption, to allow things that prevent people from living in rural areas, etc etc etc.
You put everything down to corruption. But there are many worsening factors in the world which have nothing to do with corruption, and many of these get worse as population increases, because land area and natural resources do not increase in line. Physical things like the efficiency of electrical distribution will go down as copper is used up. I have to spend a lot of my time painting external woodwork - a man in 1600 would not have needed to, because joinery was then made of oak, but then the expanding population used up oak faster than it grew. Just examples. And friction between people increases with population levels, both at international and local levels.
I submit that there there is an optimum level of population, which most countries have already greatly exceeded.
the idea that there is insufficient land is bogus as long as we are paying farmers to not grow things. there is plenty of food
Ever watched "Soylent Green"?
In fact GP did not mention food. Whether he meant to or not, the concern is not just about food, but for many reasons.
Take living space. In the UK there is now an oppressive sense of overcrowding almost every where you go. The south east and midlands are becoming one huge connurbation in which the remaining green areas (including what used to be "The Green Belt") are battlegrounds between developers and conservationists, battles the moneyed developers almost always win. Journeys I made only 10 years ago through pleasant countryside are now though vast new tracts of housing, with much more traffic accordingly. I find this population growth frightening.
Am I the only person who likes some personal space, quiet and solitude sometimes? Am I the only one who hates siting in traffic jams, waiting in queues, being almost in shoulder-to-shoulder contact with people in the street, and having to park-and-ride with thousands of others to complete the journey to any location considered attractive?
I have friends, with professional jobs but not so well off, who can only afford tiny accomodation - in modern 'rabbit hutches' or older houses divided into multiple bed-sits. Those older houses were actually built for a single working class family 100 years ago, but now accomodate two or three different "professional" couples or individuals. And I see the mental strain caused by this overcrowding - noise issues, parking issues, bathroom-sharing issues, rubbish (trash) collection issues, and plain lack of space for their own 'things'.
To hell with the overcrowded world you seem to want.
the problem with 'population control' is that someone has to decide what 'sort of people' are 'better'
So what would you leave it to - until the entire mass of the universe has been converted to human biomass? Or would you call it a day at some earlier point? I have practiced 'population control' myself. It is called contraception. WTF have ideas about a 'better sort of people' got to do with it?
1) These wheels will be inefficient in fuel consumption as there is always a rotational component in the contact patch, as opposed to the pure rolling in a conventional wheel, leading to some loss of energy that way through friction. Least so when fully tilted, but still real. So forget about routine use for distance transport.
2) For the same reason as (1), the tyre wear will significantly higher than in a conventional wheel. So again forget about routine use for distance transport.
3) The tyre will be non-pneumatic (or very expensive if someone manages to make a pneumatic one). So forget about normal road speed use.
4) The tilting gimble and actuators will lead to a high unsprung weight. So again forget about normal road speed use.
5) The rapidity with which you can change direction at road speeds is limited by the coefficient of friction between the tyre and the road, not by the steering mechanism. For cornering at road speeds you will not do any better than with conventional road wheels and tyres. (And on a rail it is limited by human tolerance if anyone is aboard.)
6) The rapidity with which you can change speed (eg accelerate) is limited by the tyre coefficient of friction again, or by the power of the engine, which ever tops out first.
OTH with this device a vehicle can change direction, into ANY direction, at low speed faster than conventional steerable wheels. A vehicle with HOG wheels all round could go along an aisle (little wider than itself) in a warehouse and then shift sideways into a side-aisle with no fuss. Drop a load and move off at a different angle again. Sounds ideal to me for a fork-lift, or for a straddle carrier in a container port.
When I first read this/. story I was going to criticise this device. Also, these HOG wheels are not necessarily tied to robotics. Anyway, I do not think it has a future. But here I am defending it - because most guys here seem to be either criticising it for the wrong reasons or praising it for the wrong reasons!
Yes, I understand the physics, but I was really countering some guys here who seem to think the wheel contact requires laboratory precision and are worrying about slight wear (needing computer compensation!!) and loss of contact (how???).
I agree this drive system is never going to be an off-roader. Also, many posters here seem to be floating the idea of it being used for cars - forget it. But as I have said in aother post here, the ideal use for this drive is fork-lift truck type applications, where tight manoevering is required, and, incidentally, the floor is flat.
But I don't think it will be as sensitive to undulations and kerbs as you and others seem to think. Most "bumps" in the floor/road are actually at quite small angles unless they are actual holes with rims. Also, a spinning top reacts violently (eg shoots across the room) when it hits the wall because its whole mass is spinning, so it has a lot of rotational momentum to be converted into linear momentum. However, this HOG vehicle has only a small proportion of its mass spinning, so contact with a kerb will probably just result in a nasty jolt and some rubber left behind. For warehouse use, just put guards around the wheels (as the prototype has).
You are worried about cracks?! I think we are at cross purposes about the scale of this thing. I assume that the prototype is a model, but even then I do not know its scale. For real world use (eg the warehouse vehicle) I envisage HOG wheels being hemisperes of about 400mm diameter. You would have to find an extremely run-down warehouse to have cracks in the floor that big!
Small stores sometimes get pissy about [using cards] though
In the UK there are plent of grocery/corner type shops and even things like car spares, builders merchants and other specialist shops, who will refuse a card for any purchase under 25 pounds (or similar figure). That rules out most convenience purchases.
The reason is simple. My wife was book keeper at a small plastics engineering company, where the boss refused to deal with credit cards. To have added a credit card facility would have cost staggering amounts of money for a small company - a set-up fee, running fees, and an extortionate % commission on each transaction.
Another reason is speed. At a commuter railway station I used to use, everyone arrived for their train with only a minute (or a second) to spare. Guys would pick up a newspaper from a kiosk while running for the train, tossing the coin to the newsagent. The business of the kiosk would have collapsed if people had to stop and type a PIN number.
Whatever jobs you guys have, to make big money you should get into the credit card business where you rake in typically about 2% of every transaction going on. Just add that up - and the "work" is done by a computer. Don't BS me that they have to deal with customer problems - they do not want to know - I've tried it.
I don't get all this worry about accuracy and precision. Wheel/tyre wear and surface undulations only matter if you need to position this robot by dead reckoning. Dead reckoning is a bad idea anyway except in machine tool or laboratory applications.
Get real. This type of drive system would be for applications like vacuuming floors and moving stuff in warehouses. Its positioning would be determined by external feedback, like lines on the floor in a warehouse or ultrasonic echoes from walls. Other factors would be irrelevant to positioning.
As for the guys worrying about loss of contact and friction (someone raised "omni-wheel" designs, with wheels composed of little wheels arranged around a big wheel) what is the problem? In TFA' photo I see a three wheeler (one HOG wheel and two conventional idlers - though it could be developed to three HOG wheels only). How can a three-wheeler lose tyre contact ?
I fail to see why a single point of contact with the ground requires a flat hard floor. [Actually, the photo in TFA shows three]. You know, take a vertical line through the centre of this hemisphere and it is bound to intersect with any surface whatever, unless they are parallel.
I have been a nuclear power executive, and the principle equivalent of an "MoT tester" for certain UK nuclear power stations.
I previously worked in the shipbuilding and railway industries (One of my resposibilities was to assess the margin against train de-railment). All three of these industries involve public safety on a large scale, but I was staggered when I first joined the nuclear industry (at a more junior level then) at the additional length and expense the nuclear industry goes to in the interests of safety - far beyond anything else I had ever seen, and far beyond most people's conception. In addition, I found that the guys working for the nuclear power industry were the best engineers and technicians I have come across in my career.
I am speaking of the UK, and I also realise that being told these these facts (or anything else) does not mean that outsiders do not remain "terrified" of anything nuclear. Similarly, my grandmother was terrified of electricity - lived in one of the last houses in London to rely on gas lighting. Nothing on earth would have convinced her otherwise. Perhaps she was right - after all, quite a few people are electrocuted every year.
There is typically a major earthquake, of the sort strong enough to for example demolish Canterbury Cathedral once every 100 years.
That is not true, even if you add "if Canterbury were the epicentre". If it were, we would see dozens of houses demolished by earthquakes every 100 years. We don't.
Seeing this is Slashdot I would have thought that this discussion would have been more scientific.
As it happens, it was my job (in the UK) to approve nuclear new-build and modifications with regard to earthquakes and other external hazards. For example, for the most recently built nuclear power station, Sizewell B, we employed a team of geologists, seismologists, soil mechanics engineers and historians to establish the earthquake expectancy at the site. The historians looked for reports of earthquakes though history, looking eg at local vicars' diaries and even taking note of Shakespear mentioning an earthquake in "Romeo and Juliet". They also looked for (and found) signs of local earthquake damage in old houses in the area, like crooked chimneys, to get an idea of intensity.
And yes, there have been roof tiles lost, and even people killed by earthquakes over the centuries. But the aim was to estimate the worst intensity of earth tremor that would be expected at Sizewell in 10,000 years. In such an earthquake, houses would not so much lose roof tiles - over a wide area many of them would be flattened.
Of course, 10,000 years is longer than the historical record, so mathematical extrapolation is needed. Also, the older historical evidence is increasingly non-quatitative (a country vicar in 1750 might write that his "clock stopped in a shaking of the ground"). But we do the best that can be done - the term in the risk evaluation business is "best estimate".
The historical studies were of course in addition to the geological studies which looked for potentially active faults in the area and beyond, including new surveys.
The power station safety systems were then designed to cope with the 10,000 year tremor with a 999-in-1000 probability of success, using industry standard equipment failure probabilities. This gave a probabilty of an uncontrolled nuclear release from an earthquake of once in 10,000,000 years. Even in that event it does not mean that everyone dies, just that you need to evacuate. There are few other human activities that give such a low probability of danger, and if you have any problem with it, run out of your house now.
Even if they wrote a new OS or language, patent trolls would still come after them with claims of infringement.
Some patents so broad and vague that the trolls could claim that you infringe them just by getting out of bed in the morning. They do not depend on coding details. With such patents, they will go after anyone with money.
Actually for home users I would even argue that being part of a botnet can be a good thing - the operators know what malware is serious and they have a financial stake in maintaining a healthy network of zombies
In the UK, "liberal" usually means someone who votes for the Liberal Democrats political party. When using the word "liberal" in its idealistic sence it is usual in the UK to say something like "liberal outlook" to make the distinction. Of course, the Liberal Democrats party does tend to be liberal in outlook, but not necessarily.
Most people I know who who desribe themselves as being of liberal outlook tend to apply this outlook to things they wish to do themselves. They are less keen on applying it to what other people wish to do, especially if it affects themselves. Like playing loud music in the middle of the night.
Slashdot Mirror
I have just bookmarked it myself.
Troon wrote : they are trying to enforce laws that are currently being broken. Seems reasonable to me
The issue, if you had not noticed, is whether it should be BT's responsibility to do the enforcement. Seems to me that if anyone is to be pursued on this it should be the owner of Newzbin, not BT.
What OS would you have used instead?
CP/M
Relayman wrote :-
Sorry, I'm not responding to AC any more. It's not that hard to set up an account with a handle.
/. occasionally.
Surely it should depend on the nature of the AC post.
Does it occur to you that someone might post as AC because they are giving some inside information (like from within a company) but do not want to be identified by their boss or someone else who might recognise them from their handle? I have done this a few times myself. Posters also might want to remain AC for the more frank and open posts when discussions of girlfriends (or lack of) are involved, as happens on
Yes I know someone might be able to find out if they persisted enough (tracing network activity within your company network for example) but mostly they would not be bothered.
Agreed. It reminds me of Bing Crosby, a cheesy, corny, Brylcreemed 1940's song-and-dance guy with a joke face and ears like jug handles. Yeuck!
Bussdriver wrote : The way we define race is political; not genetic. There is so little difference genetically it doesn't deserve any time. I can have more DNA in common with some Asian guy than my white neighbor
That sounds like saying my wife has more in common with the fridge than with me because, unlike me, they are both 5'2" tall and serve beer.
I understand that humans have DNA similarities with sponges and trees too.
Politically Incorrect as it may be to point out, clearly there are significant and consistent physical differences between races and these differences are inherited, like the fact that only black people are prone to sickle cell anaemia. The mechanism for this must be in the DNA. If the difference appears to be little in the biochemical sense then I would conclude that these "little" differences are actually more significant than you give them credit. Rather like the way that a single bit difference among millions in computer code can completely change the way the software works.
What tosh. It was not "scientists" who thought up these terms (Chinaman, Nigger, Wop, Honky, Mullato, Eurasian) but ordinary people.
Like it or not, people can be placed in these categories (although you may prefer different names), just as white people can be divided into blonds, redheads, etc. Most black people do not hesitate to identify themselves as black, but find "Nigger" objectionable, and I don't blame them. As for "scientific cause" there are scientific differences, though the liberals never admit it. The very skin pigment is clearly measurable for example, Oriental men are less likely to get prostate cancer, and black people are more prone to sickle cell disease. Skull shapes are obviously different on average. I am talking about averages and there are always exceptions of course. These characteristics are clearly carried genetically because offspring tend to have the same characeristics. These are just facts and nothing to do with whether they are a "good" thing or not.
I remember a TV programme (in UK) on the evolution of the human species. It went through the Lake Rudolf finds - you know the stuff - Neanderthal Man etc and then went on to the accepted common ancestor of modern man, Homo Sapiens. I thought that it would now get interesting as to how they would explain the evolution of the modern races. But with a sort of shrug, we were told like "Hey Presto! we have modern man!". End of story - they did not have the guts to tackle how the different races arose. These days no-one would dare to do any research or even make any suggestion on the matter.
I am no anthropologist, but I guess that differently located human clusters from the common ancestor started to evolve away from each other, but not enough to become separate species. But do we ever see any coverage of this verboten subject? - No.
Shadow99: People from Africa, or China were considered backwards and not 'worthy' of being called human.
Tosh again. The British Empire at least recognised civilisation when it saw it. At times, especially in the 1700's, there were crazes in the UK for Indian and Chinese things and styles - the Brighton Pavillion is an example from that time. The Brits did not see much value in black African culture though, and tried to "Anglicise" them, which is why modern black people in the west are more "western" than Indians or Chinese; for example they are more likely to be Christian.
Hartree said : Even Geert Wilders (noted anti-immigrant Dutch politician) is condemning him at this point.
It has come to something when it is assumed that someone against immigration would be expected to support mass murder.
It goes to show what a distorted view some socialists have of the world. Suggest that immigration might be anything less than the best thing that that ever happened and they seem to lose all sense of reason and start foaming at the mouth about Fascism and a Mr H who departed from history about 60 years ago. While claiming to be liberal they suppress any mention of the subject, although it is an elephant in the room, other than in pre-approved positive soundbites.
There are all sorts of good reasons against immigration. That is why most countries, at least in the west, including the USA and the UK, have restrictions on it even if they do not ban it completely.
When I learned to drive, I was told that a fundamental principle was not to exceed a speed at which you could comfortable stop in the distance you can see is clear.
When did that go out the winddow?
AC said :- "Believe me, corruption is much easier to deal with in the private sector than in government."
No it is not . One reason is that if people discover that their government is doing something corrupt they howl with indignation, because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that the government is supposed to be their agent. OTOH, with the private sector they (people like you?) shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, that's business, you can't make omelettes without cracking eggs, they have to make a profit somehow." I hear people talking like that about Microsoft (for example) when their corrupt practices are pointed out, and they said it about Rupert Murdoch for years, until last week.
Also, in these days of international business, sub-sub-sub-sub-contracting, and offshoring, we are usually told that corrupt businesses are legally out of reach - spammers, crappy Chinese tool companies, and Murdoch's companies for example.
it comes from people being forced out of rural areas and into concentrated centers because of politics, economics, warfare, and corruption.
why are rural areas of america emptying of people? there are no jobs, and people cannot afford to live there. they move to cities.
I guess by "it" you mean the overcrowding in cities. I am talking about what I see in the UK, and I assure you that there is no emptying of rural areas here these days. There was in the 18th and 19th centuries, but not now. You do not have to go far in (what was) the countryside in the UK to see new houses being built by the 1000's.
UK readers might take a look by the M4, Jcn 15-16 as Swindon expands into green fields, and around Andover, Basingstoke, Brackley. In my lifetime new "housing" cities have sprung up in what were totally rural areas, usually named after a village or small town it has swallowed : Milton Keynes, Thornbury, Nailsea, Cambourne. I am just naming some places which I pass. Away from any town or village, former stables, cowsheds and barns are converted (if they are of brick or stone - it's an industry) to commuter homes (adding rural traffic). The cows and corn are moved to pre-fab buildings - if they survive, as the farmer makes more money from the rents than he ever did farming.
why are there millions in refugee camps in africa? because of wars, often funded by corrupt 'developed' nations to extract natural resources and prop up dictators. [etc etc]
Not sure what this has to do with the subject of world overcrowding. You seem to have a thing about corrupt dictators.
why is england full of immigrants? because the corrupt nature of countries like Iran or Pakistan doesnt allow people to escape poverty there, so they flee.
The immigrants I meet were never that poor (I do not think the poorest can afford the ticket) and not at all "oppressed", although they usually come expecting more sex and money. Many, or most, are disappointed. I know one with a degree who works now as a cleaner. When I ask why they came the answer is "To get on I needed to learn English, so came to England", but now they seem stuck here. To be honest, I do not think most of them really know why they come : more like a feeling they want to be near the centre of things, in a world sense.
One came (from Czechoslovakia, 1968) for the much vaunted "freedom". He described his feeling on reaching the UK as : first euphoria (lasted 4 weeks), then disappointment (that he had no more freedom in UK than where he came from, in many ways less), and finally the resignation that he had been chasing a chimera. As for democracy, he said it was western bullshit that the then communist Czech was a single party state : their elections offered a wide choice of parties, but all had virtually the same policies - just like the UK then.
none of these migrations are caused by 'too many people', they are caused by social and political choices made by the leaders of society - - to allow corruption, to allow things that prevent people from living in rural areas, etc etc etc.
You put everything down to corruption. But there are many worsening factors in the world which have nothing to do with corruption, and many of these get worse as population increases, because land area and natural resources do not increase in line. Physical things like the efficiency of electrical distribution will go down as copper is used up. I have to spend a lot of my time painting external woodwork - a man in 1600 would not have needed to, because joinery was then made of oak, but then the expanding population used up oak faster than it grew. Just examples. And friction between people increases with population levels, both at international and local levels.
I submit that there there is an optimum level of population, which most countries have already greatly exceeded.
Quoting Decora :
the idea that there is insufficient land is bogus as long as we are paying farmers to not grow things. there is plenty of food
Ever watched "Soylent Green"?
In fact GP did not mention food. Whether he meant to or not, the concern is not just about food, but for many reasons.
Take living space. In the UK there is now an oppressive sense of overcrowding almost every where you go. The south east and midlands are becoming one huge connurbation in which the remaining green areas (including what used to be "The Green Belt") are battlegrounds between developers and conservationists, battles the moneyed developers almost always win. Journeys I made only 10 years ago through pleasant countryside are now though vast new tracts of housing, with much more traffic accordingly. I find this population growth frightening.
Am I the only person who likes some personal space, quiet and solitude sometimes? Am I the only one who hates siting in traffic jams, waiting in queues, being almost in shoulder-to-shoulder contact with people in the street, and having to park-and-ride with thousands of others to complete the journey to any location considered attractive?
I have friends, with professional jobs but not so well off, who can only afford tiny accomodation - in modern 'rabbit hutches' or older houses divided into multiple bed-sits. Those older houses were actually built for a single working class family 100 years ago, but now accomodate two or three different "professional" couples or individuals. And I see the mental strain caused by this overcrowding - noise issues, parking issues, bathroom-sharing issues, rubbish (trash) collection issues, and plain lack of space for their own 'things'.
To hell with the overcrowded world you seem to want.
the problem with 'population control' is that someone has to decide what 'sort of people' are 'better'
So what would you leave it to - until the entire mass of the universe has been converted to human biomass? Or would you call it a day at some earlier point? I have practiced 'population control' myself. It is called contraception. WTF have ideas about a 'better sort of people' got to do with it?
For what use would you say it is ideal then?
:-
/. story I was going to criticise this device. Also, these HOG wheels are not necessarily tied to robotics. Anyway, I do not think it has a future. But here I am defending it - because most guys here seem to be either criticising it for the wrong reasons or praising it for the wrong reasons!
Bear in mind that
1) These wheels will be inefficient in fuel consumption as there is always a rotational component in the contact patch, as opposed to the pure rolling in a conventional wheel, leading to some loss of energy that way through friction. Least so when fully tilted, but still real. So forget about routine use for distance transport.
2) For the same reason as (1), the tyre wear will significantly higher than in a conventional wheel. So again forget about routine use for distance transport.
3) The tyre will be non-pneumatic (or very expensive if someone manages to make a pneumatic one). So forget about normal road speed use.
4) The tilting gimble and actuators will lead to a high unsprung weight. So again forget about normal road speed use.
5) The rapidity with which you can change direction at road speeds is limited by the coefficient of friction between the tyre and the road, not by the steering mechanism. For cornering at road speeds you will not do any better than with conventional road wheels and tyres. (And on a rail it is limited by human tolerance if anyone is aboard.)
6) The rapidity with which you can change speed (eg accelerate) is limited by the tyre coefficient of friction again, or by the power of the engine, which ever tops out first.
OTH with this device a vehicle can change direction, into ANY direction, at low speed faster than conventional steerable wheels. A vehicle with HOG wheels all round could go along an aisle (little wider than itself) in a warehouse and then shift sideways into a side-aisle with no fuss. Drop a load and move off at a different angle again. Sounds ideal to me for a fork-lift, or for a straddle carrier in a container port.
When I first read this
Yes, I understand the physics, but I was really countering some guys here who seem to think the wheel contact requires laboratory precision and are worrying about slight wear (needing computer compensation!!) and loss of contact (how???).
I agree this drive system is never going to be an off-roader. Also, many posters here seem to be floating the idea of it being used for cars - forget it. But as I have said in aother post here, the ideal use for this drive is fork-lift truck type applications, where tight manoevering is required, and, incidentally, the floor is flat.
But I don't think it will be as sensitive to undulations and kerbs as you and others seem to think. Most "bumps" in the floor/road are actually at quite small angles unless they are actual holes with rims. Also, a spinning top reacts violently (eg shoots across the room) when it hits the wall because its whole mass is spinning, so it has a lot of rotational momentum to be converted into linear momentum. However, this HOG vehicle has only a small proportion of its mass spinning, so contact with a kerb will probably just result in a nasty jolt and some rubber left behind. For warehouse use, just put guards around the wheels (as the prototype has).
You are worried about cracks?! I think we are at cross purposes about the scale of this thing. I assume that the prototype is a model, but even then I do not know its scale. For real world use (eg the warehouse vehicle) I envisage HOG wheels being hemisperes of about 400mm diameter. You would have to find an extremely run-down warehouse to have cracks in the floor that big!
I loved the link! Couldn't have happened to a better person.
Cant wait for him to test drive the first HOG wheeled vehicle!
Understatement of the day (by ls44c) :-
Small stores sometimes get pissy about [using cards] though
In the UK there are plent of grocery/corner type shops and even things like car spares, builders merchants and other specialist shops, who will refuse a card for any purchase under 25 pounds (or similar figure). That rules out most convenience purchases.
The reason is simple. My wife was book keeper at a small plastics engineering company, where the boss refused to deal with credit cards. To have added a credit card facility would have cost staggering amounts of money for a small company - a set-up fee, running fees, and an extortionate % commission on each transaction.
Another reason is speed. At a commuter railway station I used to use, everyone arrived for their train with only a minute (or a second) to spare. Guys would pick up a newspaper from a kiosk while running for the train, tossing the coin to the newsagent. The business of the kiosk would have collapsed if people had to stop and type a PIN number.
Whatever jobs you guys have, to make big money you should get into the credit card business where you rake in typically about 2% of every transaction going on. Just add that up - and the "work" is done by a computer. Don't BS me that they have to deal with customer problems - they do not want to know - I've tried it.
I don't get all this worry about accuracy and precision. Wheel/tyre wear and surface undulations only matter if you need to position this robot by dead reckoning. Dead reckoning is a bad idea anyway except in machine tool or laboratory applications.
Get real. This type of drive system would be for applications like vacuuming floors and moving stuff in warehouses. Its positioning would be determined by external feedback, like lines on the floor in a warehouse or ultrasonic echoes from walls. Other factors would be irrelevant to positioning.
As for the guys worrying about loss of contact and friction (someone raised "omni-wheel" designs, with wheels composed of little wheels arranged around a big wheel) what is the problem? In TFA' photo I see a three wheeler (one HOG wheel and two conventional idlers - though it could be developed to three HOG wheels only). How can a three-wheeler lose tyre contact ?
I fail to see why a single point of contact with the ground requires a flat hard floor. [Actually, the photo in TFA shows three]. You know, take a vertical line through the centre of this hemisphere and it is bound to intersect with any surface whatever, unless they are parallel.
I have been a nuclear power executive, and the principle equivalent of an "MoT tester" for certain UK nuclear power stations.
I previously worked in the shipbuilding and railway industries (One of my resposibilities was to assess the margin against train de-railment). All three of these industries involve public safety on a large scale, but I was staggered when I first joined the nuclear industry (at a more junior level then) at the additional length and expense the nuclear industry goes to in the interests of safety - far beyond anything else I had ever seen, and far beyond most people's conception. In addition, I found that the guys working for the nuclear power industry were the best engineers and technicians I have come across in my career.
I am speaking of the UK, and I also realise that being told these these facts (or anything else) does not mean that outsiders do not remain "terrified" of anything nuclear. Similarly, my grandmother was terrified of electricity - lived in one of the last houses in London to rely on gas lighting. Nothing on earth would have convinced her otherwise. Perhaps she was right - after all, quite a few people are electrocuted every year.
There is typically a major earthquake, of the sort strong enough to for example demolish Canterbury Cathedral once every 100 years.
That is not true, even if you add "if Canterbury were the epicentre". If it were, we would see dozens of houses demolished by earthquakes every 100 years. We don't.
Seeing this is Slashdot I would have thought that this discussion would have been more scientific.
As it happens, it was my job (in the UK) to approve nuclear new-build and modifications with regard to earthquakes and other external hazards. For example, for the most recently built nuclear power station, Sizewell B, we employed a team of geologists, seismologists, soil mechanics engineers and historians to establish the earthquake expectancy at the site. The historians looked for reports of earthquakes though history, looking eg at local vicars' diaries and even taking note of Shakespear mentioning an earthquake in "Romeo and Juliet". They also looked for (and found) signs of local earthquake damage in old houses in the area, like crooked chimneys, to get an idea of intensity.
And yes, there have been roof tiles lost, and even people killed by earthquakes over the centuries. But the aim was to estimate the worst intensity of earth tremor that would be expected at Sizewell in 10,000 years. In such an earthquake, houses would not so much lose roof tiles - over a wide area many of them would be flattened.
Of course, 10,000 years is longer than the historical record, so mathematical extrapolation is needed. Also, the older historical evidence is increasingly non-quatitative (a country vicar in 1750 might write that his "clock stopped in a shaking of the ground"). But we do the best that can be done - the term in the risk evaluation business is "best estimate".
The historical studies were of course in addition to the geological studies which looked for potentially active faults in the area and beyond, including new surveys.
The power station safety systems were then designed to cope with the 10,000 year tremor with a 999-in-1000 probability of success, using industry standard equipment failure probabilities. This gave a probabilty of an uncontrolled nuclear release from an earthquake of once in 10,000,000 years. Even in that event it does not mean that everyone dies, just that you need to evacuate. There are few other human activities that give such a low probability of danger, and if you have any problem with it, run out of your house now.
Even if they wrote a new OS or language, patent trolls would still come after them with claims of infringement.
Some patents so broad and vague that the trolls could claim that you infringe them just by getting out of bed in the morning. They do not depend on coding details. With such patents, they will go after anyone with money.
Actually for home users I would even argue that being part of a botnet can be a good thing - the operators know what malware is serious and they have a financial stake in maintaining a healthy network of zombies
My title says it all.
In the UK, "liberal" usually means someone who votes for the Liberal Democrats political party. When using the word "liberal" in its idealistic sence it is usual in the UK to say something like "liberal outlook" to make the distinction. Of course, the Liberal Democrats party does tend to be liberal in outlook, but not necessarily.
Most people I know who who desribe themselves as being of liberal outlook tend to apply this outlook to things they wish to do themselves. They are less keen on applying it to what other people wish to do, especially if it affects themselves. Like playing loud music in the middle of the night.
Parent is modded as funny, but this is about the most insightful comment I have seen on this topic so far.
PS, Some of my best friends are arts graduates, but they do not have a clue about computers.