Shifting weight forward would move the thing forward some amount of steps, then that kinetic energy will have been expended and it will come to a stop. Also the weight must stay forward, as soon as you shift the weight back to where it was the momentum is shifted in the wrong direction.
This is great for very energy efficient walking with a few situations where no energy is spent, but any robots built with this sort of setup will have to be powered.
Also is it just me, or is calling this a robot a stretch? It's just a machine that reacts passively to a push or a slope.
I agree with your sentiment 100%, but I can't stop my self from correcting your list. Tubercolosis is very much still around. The infection rate may be as high as 1/3 the world population, but that is heavily skewed to the developing world. Not to mention measles is coming back thanks to those same idiot celebrities that think it's better for their children to contract horrible diseases than for them to have to care for a child with a developmental disorder that is NOT linked to the vaccines at all.
I'd also wager that men are a lot quicker to find symptoms of cancer (lumps, etc.) on their penis than a woman would find a cervical problem. This would lead to earlier treatments / higher success rates for the cases that do come up.
The only thing that's changed since the 80's is the rise of the HIV virus. HPV didn't just start causing cervical cancer, but it wasn't until after the 80's that the link was determined. We now have a hepatitis vaccine, this HPV vaccine, and a much healthier concern for the risk of unprotected sex.
Besides, I hardly think that "all you had to worry about was pregnancy" is a small concern, or the things that weren't cleared up by a shot even back then. Don't get too nostalgic.
Coming back to the present, I'm not going to say this should be mandated for anybody, but I do think it's a good idea. Most young people wouldn't give a care about this vaccine until it was too late for them. We have the technology to stop people from catching this virus, so why wouldn't we try to eliminate another negative human pathogen?
The EU compared to the US is really rather close in size. It's just asinine for the GP to write off the EU (and everything non-US) as not mattering at all. I think he is also wrong about the popularity of the Amiga in the US.
That works great on the East Coast, but there are a lot of areas in the West that taking the road in the next County isn't an option. One county not doing their share of road upkeep will cause massive disruption to the road system in the West. I suppose we can go back to using trains. They pay their own costs for upkeep.
Unfortunately, anyone that seriously suggests cuts or stoppage to that money sink will get it turned around and used to smear them in any campaign for office. Even if everyone was in agreement that it should be cut, it is used as a political weapon.
I'm assuming you are referring to the Iraq/Afganistan operations or just defense spending in general.
It could be the departments that would be closed down per the summary. Office of Science, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Geological Survey are all kind of nerd worthy departments.
Aha! You've hit upon the way to make sense of the situation to both sides of the argument - money. A precise economic analysis of the cost of both A and B would help determine whether to act or not. But articles like this one show that we still don't know the costs and benefits of either scenario so we have to do what causes all the bickering - take some things on faith. And the two sides take different ideas to heart, which effects their analysis of which scenario is cheaper, A or B.
Personally, I like your idea of buying some insurance. I also don't see anything wrong with cleaning up the place I live in. Why some people are so against cleaning up the Earth makes me wonder what kind of filth they live in in their own homes.
Um, the US already has a huge expanse of arctic land called Alaska that is extremely sparsely populated. I fail to see why annexing Canada would change the fact people don't want to live that far north. Remember, even if the poles warm up and have balmy winters, it's still dark as hell all winter long.
Yeah, it's there, but how many gigatons of oil will it take to get that out of the ground? It doesn't just ooze out of the ground on its own and current tech says its an energy loss to extract it. It would only be worth it if you had an alternative energy source and were just extracting it for chemical and materials processing.
The problem with any argument equating glacier growth/retreat with whether global warming is real, is that global warming and glacier performance are loosely coupled and possibly in very complex ways. Generally, one force causes glaciers to decrease in size: temperatures above freeezing causing melt off, and one force causes glaciers to grow: snowfall that accumulates on the glacier.
The twist is that snowfall is related to global temperatures. It is quite likely that raising temps cause moisture patterns to change, which can dump enough additional snow on some glaciers to keep them growing in the face of rising temps. It is also likely that other glaciers get even less moisture and shrink at elevated rates. If global temps were to go up say 50 degrees, I doubt any glaciers would be able to counter that melt-off with increased snowfall, and all of them would shrink, but with smaller temp changes, some will grow and some will shrink.
RMNP is a really cool place, but I seriously suggest coming up here to Alaska some time if you want to see glaciers.
Worse than not having cable. Unless he is in the middle of no where, it is being broadcast directly through his body every Monday night via terrestrial antenna.
If we want to really get into semantics, how much freedom do you have in the time axis? So far I've only been able to creep forward in an unending progression into the future.
Just FYI, Safari runs on Windows machines so you could run it if you wanted to. I have yet to actually meet a real life person that runs Safari on Windows other than for testing websites, but it is possible.
except the ball doesn't record a spherical image. It records an image that is best described by a 36 sided polyhedron. The areas of the image where these sides meet is the source of the distortion. But yes, it is basically due to projecting this image onto a flat screen for viewing. That is unless the cameras have optics that account for this. Then I'm talking out of my ass and you are correct.
Wow, you must listen to terrible comedians that just tell "jokes" that are 100% factual representations of life with no exaggeration or hyperbole at all. Out of curiosity then, is this a better joke for you:
How about turning them on? The one that works is an iPad.
Oh damn! Let me pick myself up off the floor and try to stop laughing. That is so much funnier because the iPad sells so many more units.
interesting idea. So you file your taxes in a way to get underpaid to get the interest after an audit. Total loss if no audit, but gain if there is one, so you'd also have to file in a way to get an extremely high chance of being audited. I'm sure its possible, but I don't like the downside of not being audited and losing out on the underpayment. Did I just say I don't like the idea of NOT being audited? What a bizarre thought experiment.
Slashdot Mirror
It's bad enough that some people only eat salads, but now virtual salads! I can just feel the weight melting off!
Shifting weight forward would move the thing forward some amount of steps, then that kinetic energy will have been expended and it will come to a stop. Also the weight must stay forward, as soon as you shift the weight back to where it was the momentum is shifted in the wrong direction.
This is great for very energy efficient walking with a few situations where no energy is spent, but any robots built with this sort of setup will have to be powered.
Also is it just me, or is calling this a robot a stretch? It's just a machine that reacts passively to a push or a slope.
I agree with your sentiment 100%, but I can't stop my self from correcting your list. Tubercolosis is very much still around. The infection rate may be as high as 1/3 the world population, but that is heavily skewed to the developing world. Not to mention measles is coming back thanks to those same idiot celebrities that think it's better for their children to contract horrible diseases than for them to have to care for a child with a developmental disorder that is NOT linked to the vaccines at all.
I'd also wager that men are a lot quicker to find symptoms of cancer (lumps, etc.) on their penis than a woman would find a cervical problem. This would lead to earlier treatments / higher success rates for the cases that do come up.
The only thing that's changed since the 80's is the rise of the HIV virus. HPV didn't just start causing cervical cancer, but it wasn't until after the 80's that the link was determined. We now have a hepatitis vaccine, this HPV vaccine, and a much healthier concern for the risk of unprotected sex.
Besides, I hardly think that "all you had to worry about was pregnancy" is a small concern, or the things that weren't cleared up by a shot even back then. Don't get too nostalgic.
Coming back to the present, I'm not going to say this should be mandated for anybody, but I do think it's a good idea. Most young people wouldn't give a care about this vaccine until it was too late for them. We have the technology to stop people from catching this virus, so why wouldn't we try to eliminate another negative human pathogen?
The EU compared to the US is really rather close in size. It's just asinine for the GP to write off the EU (and everything non-US) as not mattering at all. I think he is also wrong about the popularity of the Amiga in the US.
That works great on the East Coast, but there are a lot of areas in the West that taking the road in the next County isn't an option. One county not doing their share of road upkeep will cause massive disruption to the road system in the West. I suppose we can go back to using trains. They pay their own costs for upkeep.
Unfortunately, anyone that seriously suggests cuts or stoppage to that money sink will get it turned around and used to smear them in any campaign for office. Even if everyone was in agreement that it should be cut, it is used as a political weapon.
I'm assuming you are referring to the Iraq/Afganistan operations or just defense spending in general.
It could be the departments that would be closed down per the summary. Office of Science, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Geological Survey are all kind of nerd worthy departments.
I care about RX damn it. They're the only scripts I run.
So.... we can't blame it on the cows? I was so hoping for Bovipogenic Global Warming.
Aha! You've hit upon the way to make sense of the situation to both sides of the argument - money. A precise economic analysis of the cost of both A and B would help determine whether to act or not. But articles like this one show that we still don't know the costs and benefits of either scenario so we have to do what causes all the bickering - take some things on faith. And the two sides take different ideas to heart, which effects their analysis of which scenario is cheaper, A or B.
Personally, I like your idea of buying some insurance. I also don't see anything wrong with cleaning up the place I live in. Why some people are so against cleaning up the Earth makes me wonder what kind of filth they live in in their own homes.
Um, the US already has a huge expanse of arctic land called Alaska that is extremely sparsely populated. I fail to see why annexing Canada would change the fact people don't want to live that far north. Remember, even if the poles warm up and have balmy winters, it's still dark as hell all winter long.
Yeah, it's there, but how many gigatons of oil will it take to get that out of the ground? It doesn't just ooze out of the ground on its own and current tech says its an energy loss to extract it. It would only be worth it if you had an alternative energy source and were just extracting it for chemical and materials processing.
The problem with any argument equating glacier growth/retreat with whether global warming is real, is that global warming and glacier performance are loosely coupled and possibly in very complex ways. Generally, one force causes glaciers to decrease in size: temperatures above freeezing causing melt off, and one force causes glaciers to grow: snowfall that accumulates on the glacier.
The twist is that snowfall is related to global temperatures. It is quite likely that raising temps cause moisture patterns to change, which can dump enough additional snow on some glaciers to keep them growing in the face of rising temps. It is also likely that other glaciers get even less moisture and shrink at elevated rates. If global temps were to go up say 50 degrees, I doubt any glaciers would be able to counter that melt-off with increased snowfall, and all of them would shrink, but with smaller temp changes, some will grow and some will shrink.
RMNP is a really cool place, but I seriously suggest coming up here to Alaska some time if you want to see glaciers.
Worse than not having cable. Unless he is in the middle of no where, it is being broadcast directly through his body every Monday night via terrestrial antenna.
If we want to really get into semantics, how much freedom do you have in the time axis? So far I've only been able to creep forward in an unending progression into the future.
Just FYI, Safari runs on Windows machines so you could run it if you wanted to. I have yet to actually meet a real life person that runs Safari on Windows other than for testing websites, but it is possible.
except the ball doesn't record a spherical image. It records an image that is best described by a 36 sided polyhedron. The areas of the image where these sides meet is the source of the distortion. But yes, it is basically due to projecting this image onto a flat screen for viewing. That is unless the cameras have optics that account for this. Then I'm talking out of my ass and you are correct.
I believe it has something to do with one of them having a front facing camera.
Wow, you must listen to terrible comedians that just tell "jokes" that are 100% factual representations of life with no exaggeration or hyperbole at all. Out of curiosity then, is this a better joke for you:
How about turning them on? The one that works is an iPad.
Oh damn! Let me pick myself up off the floor and try to stop laughing. That is so much funnier because the iPad sells so many more units.
interesting idea. So you file your taxes in a way to get underpaid to get the interest after an audit. Total loss if no audit, but gain if there is one, so you'd also have to file in a way to get an extremely high chance of being audited. I'm sure its possible, but I don't like the downside of not being audited and losing out on the underpayment. Did I just say I don't like the idea of NOT being audited? What a bizarre thought experiment.
I would say go away to all of those things as well and I'm in America.
If you were aware that there are two sides, one being robbed and one doing the robbing, why would you not get on the robbing side?
Which city did they rape you in? I could use a vacation.