[I've read through the responses to this post, and I wanted to reply to the actual responses, but it was kind of hard, because I would almost end up repeating myself. At least, I think so. If you'd recommend otherwise, let me know.]
Your questions are legitimate, because people for the most part, should be able to buy a computer, and *easily* get the software for it. That being said, I'd agree with Bill, the guy who looked like he was trolling.
I can see a lot of consumer misunderstandings happening *at* *first*, because businesses and consumers need to adapt to this new thing called Linux. However, once the store gets organized, people will begin to shop properly enough that only the most absent-minded or stupid people will make mistakes. That's a harsh description, but I'm including myself in that group. And it's an extreme group, in that the people would have to walk into the wrong section and buy the wrong the software. Even right now, you can walk into a video game store, and rent/buy a dvd for whatever game system. If you make a mistake, and come back and ask for an exchange, then I assume that the stores will usually grant you an exchange. They must offer "good" customer service, right? And the custumer is "always right", right? Well, those are rare situations in and of themselves, and most people do fine.
I believe that this will be similar, statistically speaking, with Linux boxes. You could walk in and make a mistake, and that will be the rare exception.
Nobody should belittle Ma Smith, or Aunt Tilley, but nobody can complain if they do get a bit of a put down. After all, by time they buy a Linux box [that's obviously labelled as such], then they'll know that they can't install Windows software, because Windows isn't in a Linux box, and the salesman would have explained it to them. If the customer doesn't understand that, then I would automatically assume that the store didn't do a good sales job. No problem for Ma Smith or Aunt Tilley. If Ma Smith or Aunt Tilley doesn't listen to the salesman and buys it assuming that they can install whatever they want, then they'll have their come-up'ins [correct sp?]. I still wouldn't belittle them, and those who deal out such come-up'ins aren't elite. That's just life. I think that the few people who get belittled once the economy settles down on this Linux idea, will be few and far between.
A possible way of avoiding any mistakes is to have a message at start up explain that all software must be a Linux version, or whatever the case.
Linux is probably a lot like every other consumer item in that it is good to have a healthy fear of the unknown and ask lots of questions. We shouldn't encourage people to feel comfortable with their computers until they have had a chance to practise doing things and learning about it. I'm not trying to sound elitist or anything. It's just that I don't usually like to encourage people to buy technology until they have a need for it, whether that be Linux or Windows. Just buying it, "just in case", isn't justifiable. Once they buy it when they need it, then wrong software will almost be unheard of.
Regarding the specific case of AOL, I would blame AOL, no matter what the situation, because as time goes on, it's becoming more and more inexcusable for them to not have a Linux version. I wouldn't explain that to Ma Smith or Aunt Tilley, though. I would just politely explain that they need Windows, and that they don't have Windows, and they are out of luck [unless, of course, AOL software works with Wine].
While I don't agree with calculators in the class room, I do appreciate the fact that the free market is causing the two technologies to become what the market is demanding. In other words, the technologies are becoming what people are looking for: a hand held or pda that calculates for you.
The amounts of power we are talking about are miniscule...
Thanks for clarifying that. I appreciate the reply. Fortunately, I won't go off on a high white horse because I have more realistic numbers now.
Maybe some nice battery rechargers might sell well? It would be kind of neat, if they were an emergency kit that had a fixed tuned radio. As long as the radio would have power, the radio would automatically broadcast emergency messages over a fixed frequency.
Really?? I could swear that I remember pulling the small one in and out. If there is no focusing, then would this actually enlarge the image?
Also, I followed the link. You mentioned that the contrast was good, but the resolution isn't as good. I think that the wax paper did the trick with resolution, because it would be a smooth surface. I'd be interested in following up with this.
On a very unrelated note, I remember that I never got to make this device in school, while my friends got to make them because they were in a different class. Perhaps the public schools would be wise to teach classes slightly different things every other year, with the assumption that siblings are one year apart and that they will share the project results with their siblings. Just a thought off the top of my head.
It basically doesn't. I believe that historical events can't be proven because to prove it in a lab, you'd have to repeat the specific event. If we repeated one of the world wars, we'd end up having WWIII, not WWI or WWII.
Unfortunately, we aren't allowed to have much.sig space. I wanted to say something along the lines of:
"We can't use science to prove historical facts, because we'd need to be able to repeat certain historical events."
As it is, my.sig barely fits.
[Emphasis in the following sentence will be added not to convey tone of voice, but to show contrast.]
However, I believe that there is nothing new under the sun. In other words, although *specific* *historical* *events* are *NOT* repeatable, it is safe to say that *types* of *historical* *events* are repeatable.
When I informally studied economics on my own time, I found that the authors often, if not always, relied on historical events to show that action A would not necessarily result in result Z. I believe that is good use of history, to avoid "repeating it".
On an unrelated note, you might want to take a look at a book about economic history. I can't remember the title, but it was something like "Canadian Economic History". I presume that you are from the US, but just the themes and the overall learning is very applicable to all countries, I believe. The book tried to stay away from morals, and who was right and who was wrong, and even shattered a few myths about white man and native relations.
I hope that clears things up. If you want, you could ask me to rephrase.
Less than 1.6kwh. Not very impressive, is it? We can generate around 200W when we're going at a good (and sustainable) clip. Unfortunately we can't run at that level for 8 hours straight... closer to two hours.
*pop*
What was that!? Oh, it was the sound of my bubble bursting. *sigh*;^)
Seriously, thanks for the numbers. I appreciate you bringing that up. As I said to someone who also replied with numbers, the good thing about science is that it gives us a balanced view on things, and then we end up wasting less time.
I can't remember exactly what I was thinking, but it was probably along the lines of an electric/electronic clock. I presume that they don't use much power.
I'm too tired to do this longhand, but here is a rough upper bound:
Hey thanks for your time. I wouldn't know how correct you are without verifying the information. I could do that later. Whether or not you are correct, I appreciate the effort that you graciously took to answer my question. I know that at times I can be very tired and don't feel posting at/.
300 Watts? Don't spend it all in one place.
LOL. [I actually did laugh out loud!:^) ]
Throw in the bothersome laws of thermodynamics and you won't even get that. Lets put it this way, if it runs on Duracells, you could probably power it without killing yourself.
Hmm, too bad. That's the problem with science. It puts a wet blankets on our dreams and ambitions. There goes my plan to power New York with one guy riding a bike!;^) Seriously, the good thing about science and other similar studies is that it can give us a balanced view and direction.
I really appeciate your comments. Perhaps there will be a market for "Charge your cell phone while you work out!" types of marketing? Not necessarily for the environmental aspect. That would be frosting on the cake. More for the convenience of having your cell phone charged more often, if you work out once a day.
We'll have to let economics have its way to see how things will turn out.
...is considered classic literature, if I understand correctly. I would never know for sure, so I would appreciate it if some people corrected/verified what I said.
I take a very right wing, Christian fundementalist view on things. The story is about a Puritan village, and the story probably doesn't potray the Puritan religion very well in the eyes of today's world, however, I felt that it wasn't about the religion as much as it was about how people behave. It almost appears to be about social science.
Now that I've studied political science and economics on my own, it would be interesting to reread the story to see if I could glean some deeper messages and principles out of it.
Whoops! Shame on me for using the same abbreviation for two different things--the first two times I said AC I meant "Air Conditioning"
:^) A-a-ah, I see.
"Air Conditioning"--the evilest of power consumption devices
Yes, agreed. It would be interesting to have a cooling system completely powered by humans and mechanical energy. I see problems with that, but I'm sure that there might be ways to work around it. Maybe we could pump water to pull the fan? I hate to see this turn really complex.
I knew someone once who took his apartment "off the grid." All I really remember about his setup is that he would have to cycle if he wanted the TV to work. That oughtta keep you from becoming a couch potato. And the more TV you watched, the better shape you'd be in!
That would be a very interesting set up. I wish more people did that, so that I could take a look.
On a slightly unrelated note, I wonder how many kilowatt hours a single "average" male could generate in a 8 hour work day with the most efficient mechanical system.
...the human powered ones bugged me. You had to do a couple steps (pedals) then the display would lite up so you could select things. The other ones never used much power as I recall (mostly LEDs and the such)...
I'm glad that you brought this up. In a room where there is plenty of light, perhaps they could have solar panels to get the electronics working, like a calculater, and perhaps enough to store a few settings, and what have you. Once you get going on the bike, then you'll get all of the pretty colored lights working. This way, each source of electricity will do what it does best. Solar will keep it running to a minimal degree, and our cycling will keep it working to a larger degree.
Maybe just for a laugh, they could have some kind of electronic game to amuse us while we cycle. For example the faster you peddle, the faster your "car" runs through the course. Remember those days of electronic versions of games like Space Invaders or Pacman? Well if you could make a Pole Position version, using LEDs, then you might have something. I truely believe that the possibilities are endless. Perhaps even a simple radio. Each person brings his own headphones, or rents them.
...but that's just my 2cents.
Well, it's more like $2 to me, because this information about your tastes and preferences are important. The way I see it, this is all a marketing and economical issue.
And so, what about those of us who get on an electric powered treadmill...
I don't know, because I'm not one of you. I don't do that kind of stuff. If I want to exercise, I'd go for a walk or do push ups. The technology that I speak of is only for those of us/you who produce motion with non-electrical devices. If your treadmill uses electricity, I'd never recommend that you try to get energy out of it, unless it actually helped to save electricity in total. Of course.
The tread mill is probably the worse case scenario, however.
and then needing to shower
I don't shower till before bed time, so I wouldn't need to shower more than once. As it is, I turn off the water when I put on soap or lather my head, so I hardly think that anyone should be lecturing me on water consumption. However, you have a valid point. My ideas are only for people who work out already. I wouldn't go out of by way to get people to exercise more just for the sake of "generating electricity".
drink more water
Drinking water can only be a good thing, even if it is only perspired out. It's important to cleanse our systems.
I'm sure you can supply us with at least 200-300 words of social commentary on that.
Why would anybody need to do that? If it saves money, energy and time, *and* people *will* use the idea [without being forced], then what is the problem? I'm only suggesting an idea, not finding a way to force anybody to do anything.
Basically, it's the same as the one in the submission, but you take 2 paper towel rolls of different diameters--one paper towel and toilet paper roll might work. Then you wrap them both in construction paper. At one end of the smaller one, you tape some wax paper around the opening. At the end of the larger one, you tape some construction paper [or equivalent] around the opening.
At this point, you should have two rolls, one slightly larger than the other, each with one end covered with different materials.
Insert the wax paper end of the smaller tube into the open end of the larger tube. Then poke a hole through the end of the larger tube's covered end, using a pin.
You can look directly at the sun *without* any risks or problems, on a normal day. To focus, just move the smaller tube in and out like telescope. You can use whatever rolls you want, but you will have to have something stiff enough to maintain the shape.
Just to be sure that we are on the same wave length, the wax paper end should act as a "viewing screen" for what comes through the pin hole.
I've always hoped they could somehow turn health clubs into some sort of mini power station. All that energy being spent on absolutely nothing.
That's an amazing idea. I've never even thought of that. So simple, yet brilliant. I'm not trying to suck up or anything. It's just that the only thing that I've seen as being a hinderance to all of this is that one person turning a generator wouldn't produce enough for him to make it very practical, once you factor in the costs of electricity [from competing sources] and the hardware. However the costs really become reduced once you reuse the hardware, it would really make a difference. I wonder where we could get this ball rolling.
I suppose the energy created is probably nothing compared to that the the club's AC units are putting out, though. The "green" health club would have to have no AC I guess.
True, but certainly the technology is out there to convert back and forth. Who knows? Maybe if enough people begin to use Stair Masters, then there will be a AC generators.
PS. Are exercise bikes (the ones with digital stats) powered by wall AC? It seems like they should at least make these human powered, if they're not already.
I don't know for sure, but searching through google for exercise bikes should turn up a few companies that would give a few specs. It would probably be best to wait to find out later on. I think that it would be wise to see who would be willing to try a new idea.
I'm so interested in this that I'm tempted to present the idea to a few companies to see how well it is received.
One idea, might be to generate enough electricity to turn fans to cool entire buildings. I don't see any problems with this, *if* there are enough people. At Expo 86, they put out a bunch of exercise bikes and people just came up there to ride them to see if they could get all of the lights to light up. As more electricity was generated, the next light would light up, till you reached the top. Perhaps apartment buildings could convert a basement room for this type of thing. People may be willing to cycle more if their own apartments were being cooled off.
I admit that it does sound scarey, but if we take baby steps, and desensitize the public, there shouldn't be any problems. Also, people tend to have a very big trust in the government, so we should be able to bring our plan into fruition.
I agree. I think that this battery is good in that in can reduce the amount of electricity *consumed* by other sources. I don't have to plug it in anymore and use up electricity created by hydro dams, and coal burning plants.
This won't catch on for a lot of people, but if we want to do it in an economical way, we should let it get out onto the market first to be sold to those who could use it now. I could use it. I ride transit, so sitting there cranking a phone won't be a problem for me. It's only a matter of how much the phone costs compared to other batteries.
Hopefully, this begins to catch on, and once it does, it can be sold in the form of a stress reliever or whatever the marketers can come up with.
But first, try to sell it to the campers who like to take their ham radios out with them.
Another helpful thing would be to get the battery manufactorers to standardize on their batteries, so that one adapter can be used for many phones. Then the adaptors can be sold seperately. Only one adapter is really needed per house hold.
human effort is truely the ultimate renewable resource
I agree.
I wish that they had more devices that helped to power the home. I would love to see an exercise bike that actually stored energy in a battery, or somehow supplemented the power being consumed by the house right now. The more resistance you add, the power you store.
As for this battery in the article, I hope that they modify it to allow the user to adapt it to any piece of electronic [laptops, flashlights, gameboys, alarm clocks, etc.]
How many people will actually carry this around with their everyday phone?
Not many, but I would. My needs are rather minimal, and I take transit. I don't mind sitting there and turning a crank for a while. I think that people wouldn't appreciate having to do this for the business use.
I'm surprised that there haven't been infomercials that offer products that can help to supplement the power to the home, or especially a log cabin or something.
I just checked and you are right in that "them" does refer to the creeping upon all four. Therefore I do stand corrected from my original reply. I now speculate that the Bible was refering to the walking on all four of the first four legs and jumping on the last two. I'm not claiming to have proved anything. I'm just saying that this is still open to discussion. I'd have to look at grasshoppers and what have you.
Thanks for replying and bringing this to my attention. Seriously. I'm going to look into it more [for my own personal knowledge].
3. Please present some of your god's characteristics. They must be a.) meaningful and b.) not contradictory in any way. Personality traits don't count -- I want real, measurable dimensions. Otherwise, your god cannot be said to exist. You're the one making the assertion, you do the proving.
You have a good point. I'll admit to that. However, how do *you* personally define "hole", or "big". Seriously. No dictionaries, please. How big is a hole? What are its dimensions? What are its synonmyms? Is there an appreciable difference between hole and a dent? or a crater?
Don't get me wrong. He should try to answer you. It's just that he needs more parameters [correct word?] as to how to answer.
Leviticus 11:21-22 (KJV) Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; [snip] So, do grasshoppers have four legs then?:)
Uhm, no...they have 3. Why?;^)
Seriously, I think the passage wasn't listing the one type of animal that they could eat, or implying that edible animals must *only* have four legs. It is listing the several types that they could eat. The latter part would almost be like an ammendment. I don't know if that helps or not, but feel free to reply.
I mean, in the Bible, everybody and their Dog heard the voice of God or witnessed some kind of miricle...
Actually, that isn't true. Not everybody heard the voice of God or "saw" him or sensed him in the scientific sense that you are probably asking about. I could quote some black and white examples if you want, and I can also point to some implied examples too. It's just that I don't want to bore you with the details.
When people put their hands to the keyboard, they'll find that their fingers are like mirror opposites. Yet the keys line up in one direction. To see what I mean, look at r f v and u j m. f and j are up above v and m, and to the left. I believe that f and j should be up and to the centre. When your hands are on the keyboard, the fingers will naturally reach up to the centre.
This won't help everybody, because many people are happy with their keyboards, but it will help some people. I'm sure that my idea won't hurt anybody. That's for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi Josh.
[I've read through the responses to this post, and I wanted to reply to the actual responses, but it was kind of hard, because I would almost end up repeating myself. At least, I think so. If you'd recommend otherwise, let me know.]
Your questions are legitimate, because people for the most part, should be able to buy a computer, and *easily* get the software for it. That being said, I'd agree with Bill, the guy who looked like he was trolling.
I can see a lot of consumer misunderstandings happening *at* *first*, because businesses and consumers need to adapt to this new thing called Linux. However, once the store gets organized, people will begin to shop properly enough that only the most absent-minded or stupid people will make mistakes. That's a harsh description, but I'm including myself in that group. And it's an extreme group, in that the people would have to walk into the wrong section and buy the wrong the software. Even right now, you can walk into a video game store, and rent/buy a dvd for whatever game system. If you make a mistake, and come back and ask for an exchange, then I assume that the stores will usually grant you an exchange. They must offer "good" customer service, right? And the custumer is "always right", right? Well, those are rare situations in and of themselves, and most people do fine.
I believe that this will be similar, statistically speaking, with Linux boxes. You could walk in and make a mistake, and that will be the rare exception.
Nobody should belittle Ma Smith, or Aunt Tilley, but nobody can complain if they do get a bit of a put down. After all, by time they buy a Linux box [that's obviously labelled as such], then they'll know that they can't install Windows software, because Windows isn't in a Linux box, and the salesman would have explained it to them. If the customer doesn't understand that, then I would automatically assume that the store didn't do a good sales job. No problem for Ma Smith or Aunt Tilley. If Ma Smith or Aunt Tilley doesn't listen to the salesman and buys it assuming that they can install whatever they want, then they'll have their come-up'ins [correct sp?]. I still wouldn't belittle them, and those who deal out such come-up'ins aren't elite. That's just life. I think that the few people who get belittled once the economy settles down on this Linux idea, will be few and far between.
A possible way of avoiding any mistakes is to have a message at start up explain that all software must be a Linux version, or whatever the case.
Linux is probably a lot like every other consumer item in that it is good to have a healthy fear of the unknown and ask lots of questions. We shouldn't encourage people to feel comfortable with their computers until they have had a chance to practise doing things and learning about it. I'm not trying to sound elitist or anything. It's just that I don't usually like to encourage people to buy technology until they have a need for it, whether that be Linux or Windows. Just buying it, "just in case", isn't justifiable. Once they buy it when they need it, then wrong software will almost be unheard of.
Regarding the specific case of AOL, I would blame AOL, no matter what the situation, because as time goes on, it's becoming more and more inexcusable for them to not have a Linux version. I wouldn't explain that to Ma Smith or Aunt Tilley, though. I would just politely explain that they need Windows, and that they don't have Windows, and they are out of luck [unless, of course, AOL software works with Wine].
While I don't agree with calculators in the class room, I do appreciate the fact that the free market is causing the two technologies to become what the market is demanding. In other words, the technologies are becoming what people are looking for: a hand held or pda that calculates for you.
Maybe some nice battery rechargers might sell well? It would be kind of neat, if they were an emergency kit that had a fixed tuned radio. As long as the radio would have power, the radio would automatically broadcast emergency messages over a fixed frequency.
Also, I followed the link. You mentioned that the contrast was good, but the resolution isn't as good. I think that the wax paper did the trick with resolution, because it would be a smooth surface. I'd be interested in following up with this.
On a very unrelated note, I remember that I never got to make this device in school, while my friends got to make them because they were in a different class. Perhaps the public schools would be wise to teach classes slightly different things every other year, with the assumption that siblings are one year apart and that they will share the project results with their siblings. Just a thought off the top of my head.
It basically doesn't. I believe that historical events can't be proven because to prove it in a lab, you'd have to repeat the specific event. If we repeated one of the world wars, we'd end up having WWIII, not WWI or WWII.
.sig space. I wanted to say something along the lines of:
.sig barely fits.
Unfortunately, we aren't allowed to have much
"We can't use science to prove historical facts, because we'd need to be able to repeat certain historical events."
As it is, my
[Emphasis in the following sentence will be added not to convey tone of voice, but to show contrast.]
However, I believe that there is nothing new under the sun. In other words, although *specific* *historical* *events* are *NOT* repeatable, it is safe to say that *types* of *historical* *events* are repeatable.
When I informally studied economics on my own time, I found that the authors often, if not always, relied on historical events to show that action A would not necessarily result in result Z. I believe that is good use of history, to avoid "repeating it".
On an unrelated note, you might want to take a look at a book about economic history. I can't remember the title, but it was something like "Canadian Economic History". I presume that you are from the US, but just the themes and the overall learning is very applicable to all countries, I believe. The book tried to stay away from morals, and who was right and who was wrong, and even shattered a few myths about white man and native relations.
I hope that clears things up. If you want, you could ask me to rephrase.
What was that!? Oh, it was the sound of my bubble bursting. *sigh*
Seriously, thanks for the numbers. I appreciate you bringing that up. As I said to someone who also replied with numbers, the good thing about science is that it gives us a balanced view on things, and then we end up wasting less time.
Take care!
[snip: description of a Paper Boy game]
LOL! I love this!
I really appeciate your comments. Perhaps there will be a market for "Charge your cell phone while you work out!" types of marketing? Not necessarily for the environmental aspect. That would be frosting on the cake. More for the convenience of having your cell phone charged more often, if you work out once a day.
We'll have to let economics have its way to see how things will turn out.
...is considered classic literature, if I understand correctly. I would never know for sure, so I would appreciate it if some people corrected/verified what I said.
I take a very right wing, Christian fundementalist view on things. The story is about a Puritan village, and the story probably doesn't potray the Puritan religion very well in the eyes of today's world, however, I felt that it wasn't about the religion as much as it was about how people behave. It almost appears to be about social science.
Now that I've studied political science and economics on my own, it would be interesting to reread the story to see if I could glean some deeper messages and principles out of it.
On a slightly unrelated note, I wonder how many kilowatt hours a single "average" male could generate in a 8 hour work day with the most efficient mechanical system.
Maybe just for a laugh, they could have some kind of electronic game to amuse us while we cycle. For example the faster you peddle, the faster your "car" runs through the course. Remember those days of electronic versions of games like Space Invaders or Pacman? Well if you could make a Pole Position version, using LEDs, then you might have something. I truely believe that the possibilities are endless. Perhaps even a simple radio. Each person brings his own headphones, or rents them.Well, it's more like $2 to me, because this information about your tastes and preferences are important. The way I see it, this is all a marketing and economical issue.
The tread mill is probably the worse case scenario, however.I don't shower till before bed time, so I wouldn't need to shower more than once. As it is, I turn off the water when I put on soap or lather my head, so I hardly think that anyone should be lecturing me on water consumption. However, you have a valid point. My ideas are only for people who work out already. I wouldn't go out of by way to get people to exercise more just for the sake of "generating electricity".Drinking water can only be a good thing, even if it is only perspired out. It's important to cleanse our systems.Why would anybody need to do that? If it saves money, energy and time, *and* people *will* use the idea [without being forced], then what is the problem? I'm only suggesting an idea, not finding a way to force anybody to do anything.
Basically, it's the same as the one in the submission, but you take 2 paper towel rolls of different diameters--one paper towel and toilet paper roll might work. Then you wrap them both in construction paper. At one end of the smaller one, you tape some wax paper around the opening. At the end of the larger one, you tape some construction paper [or equivalent] around the opening.
At this point, you should have two rolls, one slightly larger than the other, each with one end covered with different materials.
Insert the wax paper end of the smaller tube into the open end of the larger tube. Then poke a hole through the end of the larger tube's covered end, using a pin.
You can look directly at the sun *without* any risks or problems, on a normal day. To focus, just move the smaller tube in and out like telescope. You can use whatever rolls you want, but you will have to have something stiff enough to maintain the shape.
Just to be sure that we are on the same wave length, the wax paper end should act as a "viewing screen" for what comes through the pin hole.
Hope this helps.
I'm so interested in this that I'm tempted to present the idea to a few companies to see how well it is received.
One idea, might be to generate enough electricity to turn fans to cool entire buildings. I don't see any problems with this, *if* there are enough people. At Expo 86, they put out a bunch of exercise bikes and people just came up there to ride them to see if they could get all of the lights to light up. As more electricity was generated, the next light would light up, till you reached the top. Perhaps apartment buildings could convert a basement room for this type of thing. People may be willing to cycle more if their own apartments were being cooled off.
I admit that it does sound scarey, but if we take baby steps, and desensitize the public, there shouldn't be any problems. Also, people tend to have a very big trust in the government, so we should be able to bring our plan into fruition.
Does that answer concerns that you might have?
This won't catch on for a lot of people, but if we want to do it in an economical way, we should let it get out onto the market first to be sold to those who could use it now. I could use it. I ride transit, so sitting there cranking a phone won't be a problem for me. It's only a matter of how much the phone costs compared to other batteries.
Hopefully, this begins to catch on, and once it does, it can be sold in the form of a stress reliever or whatever the marketers can come up with.
But first, try to sell it to the campers who like to take their ham radios out with them.
Another helpful thing would be to get the battery manufactorers to standardize on their batteries, so that one adapter can be used for many phones. Then the adaptors can be sold seperately. Only one adapter is really needed per house hold.
I wish that they had more devices that helped to power the home. I would love to see an exercise bike that actually stored energy in a battery, or somehow supplemented the power being consumed by the house right now. The more resistance you add, the power you store.
As for this battery in the article, I hope that they modify it to allow the user to adapt it to any piece of electronic [laptops, flashlights, gameboys, alarm clocks, etc.]
I'm surprised that there haven't been infomercials that offer products that can help to supplement the power to the home, or especially a log cabin or something.
I just checked and you are right in that "them" does refer to the creeping upon all four. Therefore I do stand corrected from my original reply. I now speculate that the Bible was refering to the walking on all four of the first four legs and jumping on the last two. I'm not claiming to have proved anything. I'm just saying that this is still open to discussion. I'd have to look at grasshoppers and what have you.
Thanks for replying and bringing this to my attention. Seriously. I'm going to look into it more [for my own personal knowledge].
Don't get me wrong. He should try to answer you. It's just that he needs more parameters [correct word?] as to how to answer.
Seriously, I think the passage wasn't listing the one type of animal that they could eat, or implying that edible animals must *only* have four legs. It is listing the several types that they could eat. The latter part would almost be like an ammendment. I don't know if that helps or not, but feel free to reply.
You question is still valid, though.
When people put their hands to the keyboard, they'll find that their fingers are like mirror opposites. Yet the keys line up in one direction. To see what I mean, look at r f v and u j m. f and j are up above v and m, and to the left. I believe that f and j should be up and to the centre. When your hands are on the keyboard, the fingers will naturally reach up to the centre.
This won't help everybody, because many people are happy with their keyboards, but it will help some people. I'm sure that my idea won't hurt anybody. That's for sure.