Somebody years ago may have made the same remark about small, solid-state personal radios with headsets that are commonly used by soldiers and police now.
decent four-point harness. The picture of the kid sitting there with a plain old lapbelt is a little scary.
Other than that, it looks pretty good. One thing to note: even though it may not go as fast as full-sized coasters, the tight loops and turns may provide equivalent, if not greater, g-forces. I'd be curious about the speeds and g this thing reaches.
Computer and video-device companies need to agree on the ingredients for creating strong protection for copyrighted films...
I guess he thinks all computers are sealed-case, off-the-shelf pieces of crap that can be built to keep an eye on the contents of your files, and what you do with those files.
Because making movies is so expensive, only two in 10 films ever retrieve their production and marketing investment from domestic theatrical exhibition...Videocassette piracy costs the movie industry worldwide more than $3.5 billion
Hey, I'm all for copyrights and piracy prevention, but let's get real. Just because clever bookkeeping makes most of your movies "losers" doesn't mean that you aren't swimming in cash from the few successful ones. Just walk across Wilshire Blvd up into the hills, knock on some doors, and ask people what they do for a living. Not a lot of insurance salesmen up there.
...a charge issued only by those who have a blurred knowledge of the financial fragility of the film industry.
I think Mr. Valenti has a blurred knowledge of technology. As I said, I'm all for copyrights and piracy prevention, but depending on an entire industry of manufacturers, programmers, and users to base their standards and protocols on your security needs is ridiculous. Might as well ask car makers to build their cars so you can't fit a duffle bag full of pot in the trunk.
And, an unrelated aside:
A recent survey revealed that 68 percent of all home computer users say they're satisfied with their normal 56K computer modem.
Hey! Isn't that equal to the number of users on AOL/MSN?
Can we have unrestricted free speech without spam?
I think this question highlights an issue central to the discussion of censorship in any medium. To wit: (I've always wanted to say that) control of Spam has nothing to do with free speech. It only relates to DELIVERY of that speech. If mary275382@yahoo.com.ru wants to tell 5 million undisclosed.recipients about Viagra for Women, under our laws she is free to do so. However, certain laws and company policies may prevent her from using certain servers/pipelines to deliver her urgent message. When it comes right down to it, she may have to resort to doing it the old fashioned way: one person at a time in the town square.
We've reached a point where "speech" includes technology that requires others to take actions to help distribute MY speech. Mary can say anything she wants in the town square, but she doesn't have the right to stick a note to my back so I unwittingly help spread her message.
In summary: yes, we can have free speech without spam.
The high cost is due to the fact that this is brand-new, revolutionary technology. In a few years the cost will come down, just as it does with all technology.
To answer your question: I'm not sure of the wheel configuration you are asking about, but if you mean two wheels side-by-side, plus a caster for stability, then you have a totally different vehicle with different capabilities. The advantage of the technology used in the Segway is that it mimics the maneuverability and stability of walking. If you lean forward a little, it moves forward. If you lean back a little, it moves back. The machine moves to keep itself under your center of gravity, thereby making your every move a control input. No effort is required to maintain balance.
With your caster configuration, the machine will be unstable in one direction or the other. If the caster is in the front, you can fall over if you lean back. If it's in the back, you can fall forward if you lean forward. If you lean to the side without turning, you run the risk of falling over in that direction. The operator has two tasks to perform: drive the machine, and stay balanced atop it. Not so with the Segway.
The Segway also has a zero turning radius, and no minimum speed required for stability, as many two wheeled vehicles have. In short, it is a totally different vehicle with different capabilities and charactaristics. Asking "why not just put a caster on it" is the same as asking "why not just put a third wheel on a motorcycle." And please don't respond with an explanation of why a motorcycle is better than a three-wheeler...they are simply different. Why have an LCD screen instead of a CRT? Why have a switch instead of a hub? If a switch is better, why do hubs exist? These are just different technologies with different uses.
Thankyou for the info. Perhaps you missed the point that different technologies, while similar in many respects, have advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other. Using the logic of many who post about the Segway, gasoline and deisel fuel are both liquids that make vehicles go, so why have both? V-6 and straight 6 engines both have 6 cylinders and both make vehicles go, so why have both? Your answer implied that deisel and straight 6 were the better technologies...so why have the other? Different uses, different advantages, different disadvantages.
This technology is inherently different than a two-wheeled scooter. Better at some things and not as good at others. Just because they both transport you from one place to another doesn't mean there's no need for innovation.
The segway, it seems to me, is much more like walking than riding a scooter is. Anyone who can stand up can use it. It is more suitable for areas designed for pedestrian use. If you don't like them, then don't buy one. But don't act like it's the same as a two wheeled scooter.
I believe that was the scenario in the real event upon which this movie was based. For whatever reason, I had more sympathy for the guy who robbed the bank.
every gun-toting, Ayn Rand-reading, welfare-bashing
I was going to fire back, but then I realized you hit me with every shot!
Interestingly enough, I just went downstairs and my wife had read a review of the same movie on another site, and we discussed our thoughts on it. For me it came down to this: It's a tragic situation...a rip your shirt and raise-your-fist-to-the-heavens tragedy; I don't blame the father for taking desperate measures; I wish everyone COULD get free hearts if they needed them. My major complaint is that they make the doctor and the hospital out to be the bad guys for not doing this immensely complicated and expensive procedure for free.
If it was my son or daughter or wife: you're half right. I WOULD want to get it done by any means possible. But I wouldn't expect it to be done for free, and I wouldn't blame the hospital and doctors for expecting to get paid, and I wouldn't expect an insurance company or any other group of people to give me a quarter million dollars when they didn't have an obligation to do so.
We live in a world (and country) where people can open your chest and give you a new heart if the original one isn't working. This isn't worth $250K? And if you can't afford it, it should be done for "free" (it's not ACTUALLY free, of course.)
Free hearts for everyone!
I'm tired of the friggin' preaching. I don't care how good the actors are.
That reminds me of something interesting I observed a few years ago. While playing my first copy of Tomb Raider, I was surprised to see those familiar "octogon tunnels" normally associated with a movie camera used in bright sunlight. I'm sure there's a technical name for them; be glad to hear it from someone if they know. Anyway, those strange intrusive refractions, rather than being considered flaws, are often used by movie makers to emphasize just how overwhelming the glare of the sun is. Particularly in desert scenes. Then the Tomb Raider people put them in their game to emphasize the "camera" feel of the whole experience.
Same with digital music that has pops and clicks added to it, to make it sound like a vinyl record. It reminds you of another medium and gives the artist the benefit of all the associations you have with that other medium.
The potential problem is the same for large and small manufacturers. The difference is that the big planes tend to be cared for more rigorously, and are less likely to be hanging around in someone's hangar for years, then flown again.
Your brake pad and fuel filter scenarios both fall into the category of "they should have warned me." Remember the guy who broke his neck and was paralyzed after diving into the surf (he hit a sandbar.) The city, you see, "should have warned him." Caution: Ocean is not bottomless. Ocean lined with sand. Also, do not inhale water as injury or death may result.
A more plausible scenario in the Cue Cat case: a child takes one apart and chokes on one of the pieces.
that every product is a liability forever. This was/is a big problem for small aircraft manufacturers...their planes easily last 50 years or more. 60 years later, the 8th owner crashes it because the fuel filter got clogged, and guess who get's sued?
And did you ever see the Simpsons episode where Homer bought the trampoline?
No lawyer would ever advise a company to give away overstock when they could be destroyed instead.
that it's "disturbing" when the camera pans the crowd during a sporting event. An invasion of privacy! Especially when they zoom in on some hot babe.
Perhaps he hasn't witnessed this peculiar behavior, which may or may not be uniquely American: when a camera is present, everybody crowds around it and raises their drink like a trophy. If they could, they would probably email everyone they knew: "Hey, I was just on camera! Turn to channel 7 or go to www.robotbar.com!."
What's the difference if the person I'm sharing with lives next door or in the next bedroom?
The difference is that telephone service, like many other services, is sold at a set price which is based upon some estimation of how much the typical customer is going to use it. To demonstrate that this is so, let's jump right to the extreme example: instead of just running cable to your neighbor's house, you run cable to your entire town. Notwithstanding the fact that the service would be horrible for everyone, you have deprived the phone company of hundreds or thousands of customers. They sold the service to you at a set price, based on the fact that they can sell the same service to everybody else in your town. If they only end up selling to one person, then they have to adjust the price.
Another example: you sign a contract for a year of all-you-need tech support by phone. You let your whole town know that you have the contract, and you give them access to the service, so the tech support people end up fielding calls all day, all on your account. But they sold you the service based on how much a normal person would be using it, and based on the fact that they would be able to sell it to many other people in your town. If they can only sell it to you, but they end up fielding calls all day anyway, then they need to adjust the price.
Summary: The price is set based on some expectation of limited personal use. If the actual usage goes way beyond that, and the customer pool drops as well, then the price needs to be adjusted. Solution: limit the usage to personal use within a househeld. Simple and reasonable.
I got pretty fired up when I read the introduction to this story. Before I got to the end, I had decided that I would switch to DSL if Comcast came-a-knocking, even though DSL is more expensive in my area.
However, I read the linked article and my Comcast agreement.
I doubt most people here have done either.
The effort is clearly aimed at people who are sharing their connections outside their homes. The article even has a diagram showing multiple homes. Take a look at this excerpt:
For example: Neighbor Bob buys cable modem service and a wireless home network. Neighbors Carol, Ted and Alice don't buy cable modem service, but they go out and buy antennas compatible with Neighbor Bob's wireless network. Everybody agrees to share Neighbor Bob's connection.
If you have a problem with trying to stop this type of activity, then you also probably think it would be OK to run phone line from your house to your neighbor's house, since you "pay for the bandwidth and can do whatever you wish with it." You would probably think it's OK to run Cat 5 or fiber all over your neighborhood too.
If Comcast tries to make me pay extra for having three networked computers, I'll be as angry as the next geek. But sheez, let's tone down the hype until that actually happens.
Why spend the $3,000 for this when a $100 razor scooter accomplishes virtually the same effect?
Why buy a $1500 computer with MS Word when a typewriter accomplishes virtually the same effect? This thing is much more than a couple wheels and a motor. It automatically moves itself to keep the wheels under you. You can't fall over on it, unless you deliberately try (and even that requires some effort, from what I understand.) I could easily see this technology replacing the attempts to put legs on robots in order to mimic human mobility. But then again, what do we need robots for, when we already have people?
I don't care about the "scooter" application either, but this technology has a zillion applications for anyone or anything that needs to be moved, lifted, transported, etc.
When I was 11 I got a mechanical pong game for Christmas. That's right, mechanical...A tv-shaped box with a frosted screen, behind which a moving arm with a light on the end of it swept back and forth (quite audibly, I might add). We chased the light with a little paddle that was moved with pulleys and string.
Over the years I've seen many useless upgrades come and go...video pong and "tennis" hardwired into a game console, more flexible consoles that accepted cartriges, even better consoles with high speed, 3-D graphics, etc. But I've never understood why I should shell out my hard earned cash for a lame overpriced Playstation, Nintendo, or X-box when my old mechanical Pong box works just fine. Those dumb games will never amount to anything because I see no need to own one.
I tell you, I just don't understand the animosity toward this amazing technology. I was hoping the subject would come up again today after people had actually SEEN it, but no such luck. For those of you who haven't seen it in action: this machine actually keeps balance. It reproduces an extremely intricate function of our brain and nervous system. Here's what the story on Time.com says:
Pulling off this trick requires an unholy amount of computer power. In every Segway there are 10 microprocessors cranking out three PCs' worth of juice. Also a cluster of aviation-grade gyros, an accelerometer, a bevy of sensors, two batteries and software so sophisticated it puts Microsoft to shame.
If that's not news for nerds, I don't know what is. Non-closed-minded people should check out the story at the link above. The rest of you can carry on with the discussion about which amazing new game you can play while your fat ass is plastered to the couch.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody years ago may have made the same remark about small, solid-state personal radios with headsets that are commonly used by soldiers and police now.
decent four-point harness. The picture of the kid sitting there with a plain old lapbelt is a little scary.
Other than that, it looks pretty good. One thing to note: even though it may not go as fast as full-sized coasters, the tight loops and turns may provide equivalent, if not greater, g-forces. I'd be curious about the speeds and g this thing reaches.
but this guy is on crack.
...a charge issued only by those who have a blurred knowledge of the financial fragility of the film industry.
Computer and video-device companies need to agree on the ingredients for creating strong protection for copyrighted films...
I guess he thinks all computers are sealed-case, off-the-shelf pieces of crap that can be built to keep an eye on the contents of your files, and what you do with those files.
Because making movies is so expensive, only two in 10 films ever retrieve their production and marketing investment from domestic theatrical exhibition...Videocassette piracy costs the movie industry worldwide more than $3.5 billion
Hey, I'm all for copyrights and piracy prevention, but let's get real. Just because clever bookkeeping makes most of your movies "losers" doesn't mean that you aren't swimming in cash from the few successful ones. Just walk across Wilshire Blvd up into the hills, knock on some doors, and ask people what they do for a living. Not a lot of insurance salesmen up there.
I think Mr. Valenti has a blurred knowledge of technology. As I said, I'm all for copyrights and piracy prevention, but depending on an entire industry of manufacturers, programmers, and users to base their standards and protocols on your security needs is ridiculous. Might as well ask car makers to build their cars so you can't fit a duffle bag full of pot in the trunk.
And, an unrelated aside:
A recent survey revealed that 68 percent of all home computer users say they're satisfied with their normal 56K computer modem.
Hey! Isn't that equal to the number of users on AOL/MSN?
Can we have unrestricted free speech without spam?
I think this question highlights an issue central to the discussion of censorship in any medium. To wit: (I've always wanted to say that) control of Spam has nothing to do with free speech. It only relates to DELIVERY of that speech. If mary275382@yahoo.com.ru wants to tell 5 million undisclosed.recipients about Viagra for Women, under our laws she is free to do so. However, certain laws and company policies may prevent her from using certain servers/pipelines to deliver her urgent message. When it comes right down to it, she may have to resort to doing it the old fashioned way: one person at a time in the town square.
We've reached a point where "speech" includes technology that requires others to take actions to help distribute MY speech. Mary can say anything she wants in the town square, but she doesn't have the right to stick a note to my back so I unwittingly help spread her message.
In summary: yes, we can have free speech without spam.
The high cost is due to the fact that this is brand-new, revolutionary technology. In a few years the cost will come down, just as it does with all technology.
To answer your question: I'm not sure of the wheel configuration you are asking about, but if you mean two wheels side-by-side, plus a caster for stability, then you have a totally different vehicle with different capabilities. The advantage of the technology used in the Segway is that it mimics the maneuverability and stability of walking. If you lean forward a little, it moves forward. If you lean back a little, it moves back. The machine moves to keep itself under your center of gravity, thereby making your every move a control input. No effort is required to maintain balance.
With your caster configuration, the machine will be unstable in one direction or the other. If the caster is in the front, you can fall over if you lean back. If it's in the back, you can fall forward if you lean forward. If you lean to the side without turning, you run the risk of falling over in that direction. The operator has two tasks to perform: drive the machine, and stay balanced atop it. Not so with the Segway.
The Segway also has a zero turning radius, and no minimum speed required for stability, as many two wheeled vehicles have. In short, it is a totally different vehicle with different capabilities and charactaristics. Asking "why not just put a caster on it" is the same as asking "why not just put a third wheel on a motorcycle." And please don't respond with an explanation of why a motorcycle is better than a three-wheeler...they are simply different. Why have an LCD screen instead of a CRT? Why have a switch instead of a hub? If a switch is better, why do hubs exist? These are just different technologies with different uses.
Thankyou for the info. Perhaps you missed the point that different technologies, while similar in many respects, have advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other. Using the logic of many who post about the Segway, gasoline and deisel fuel are both liquids that make vehicles go, so why have both? V-6 and straight 6 engines both have 6 cylinders and both make vehicles go, so why have both? Your answer implied that deisel and straight 6 were the better technologies...so why have the other? Different uses, different advantages, different disadvantages.
Why use deisel when you can use gasoline?
This technology is inherently different than a two-wheeled scooter. Better at some things and not as good at others. Just because they both transport you from one place to another doesn't mean there's no need for innovation.
The segway, it seems to me, is much more like walking than riding a scooter is. Anyone who can stand up can use it. It is more suitable for areas designed for pedestrian use. If you don't like them, then don't buy one. But don't act like it's the same as a two wheeled scooter.
I believe that was the scenario in the real event upon which this movie was based. For whatever reason, I had more sympathy for the guy who robbed the bank.
every gun-toting, Ayn Rand-reading, welfare-bashing
I was going to fire back, but then I realized you hit me with every shot!
Interestingly enough, I just went downstairs and my wife had read a review of the same movie on another site, and we discussed our thoughts on it. For me it came down to this: It's a tragic situation...a rip your shirt and raise-your-fist-to-the-heavens tragedy; I don't blame the father for taking desperate measures; I wish everyone COULD get free hearts if they needed them. My major complaint is that they make the doctor and the hospital out to be the bad guys for not doing this immensely complicated and expensive procedure for free.
If it was my son or daughter or wife: you're half right. I WOULD want to get it done by any means possible. But I wouldn't expect it to be done for free, and I wouldn't blame the hospital and doctors for expecting to get paid, and I wouldn't expect an insurance company or any other group of people to give me a quarter million dollars when they didn't have an obligation to do so.
We live in a world (and country) where people can open your chest and give you a new heart if the original one isn't working. This isn't worth $250K? And if you can't afford it, it should be done for "free" (it's not ACTUALLY free, of course.)
Free hearts for everyone!
I'm tired of the friggin' preaching. I don't care how good the actors are.
That reminds me of something interesting I observed a few years ago. While playing my first copy of Tomb Raider, I was surprised to see those familiar "octogon tunnels" normally associated with a movie camera used in bright sunlight. I'm sure there's a technical name for them; be glad to hear it from someone if they know. Anyway, those strange intrusive refractions, rather than being considered flaws, are often used by movie makers to emphasize just how overwhelming the glare of the sun is. Particularly in desert scenes. Then the Tomb Raider people put them in their game to emphasize the "camera" feel of the whole experience.
Same with digital music that has pops and clicks added to it, to make it sound like a vinyl record. It reminds you of another medium and gives the artist the benefit of all the associations you have with that other medium.
Trust me, nobody hates that aspect of our legal system more than a responsible American.
Lucky me for hitting on the one item that makes you "generally dislike" us.
The potential problem is the same for large and small manufacturers. The difference is that the big planes tend to be cared for more rigorously, and are less likely to be hanging around in someone's hangar for years, then flown again.
Your brake pad and fuel filter scenarios both fall into the category of "they should have warned me." Remember the guy who broke his neck and was paralyzed after diving into the surf (he hit a sandbar.) The city, you see, "should have warned him." Caution: Ocean is not bottomless. Ocean lined with sand. Also, do not inhale water as injury or death may result.
A more plausible scenario in the Cue Cat case: a child takes one apart and chokes on one of the pieces.
That's a nice site, eh? Whoever built that must have known HTML, including forms.
that every product is a liability forever. This was/is a big problem for small aircraft manufacturers...their planes easily last 50 years or more. 60 years later, the 8th owner crashes it because the fuel filter got clogged, and guess who get's sued?
And did you ever see the Simpsons episode where Homer bought the trampoline?
No lawyer would ever advise a company to give away overstock when they could be destroyed instead.
that it's "disturbing" when the camera pans the crowd during a sporting event. An invasion of privacy! Especially when they zoom in on some hot babe.
Perhaps he hasn't witnessed this peculiar behavior, which may or may not be uniquely American: when a camera is present, everybody crowds around it and raises their drink like a trophy. If they could, they would probably email everyone they knew: "Hey, I was just on camera! Turn to channel 7 or go to www.robotbar.com!."
Now its all done automatically.
that is about to be aquired by AOL/Time Warner?
What's the difference if the person I'm sharing with lives next door or in the next bedroom?
The difference is that telephone service, like many other services, is sold at a set price which is based upon some estimation of how much the typical customer is going to use it. To demonstrate that this is so, let's jump right to the extreme example: instead of just running cable to your neighbor's house, you run cable to your entire town. Notwithstanding the fact that the service would be horrible for everyone, you have deprived the phone company of hundreds or thousands of customers. They sold the service to you at a set price, based on the fact that they can sell the same service to everybody else in your town. If they only end up selling to one person, then they have to adjust the price.
Another example: you sign a contract for a year of all-you-need tech support by phone. You let your whole town know that you have the contract, and you give them access to the service, so the tech support people end up fielding calls all day, all on your account. But they sold you the service based on how much a normal person would be using it, and based on the fact that they would be able to sell it to many other people in your town. If they can only sell it to you, but they end up fielding calls all day anyway, then they need to adjust the price.
Summary: The price is set based on some expectation of limited personal use. If the actual usage goes way beyond that, and the customer pool drops as well, then the price needs to be adjusted. Solution: limit the usage to personal use within a househeld. Simple and reasonable.
I got pretty fired up when I read the introduction to this story. Before I got to the end, I had decided that I would switch to DSL if Comcast came-a-knocking, even though DSL is more expensive in my area.
However, I read the linked article and my Comcast agreement.
I doubt most people here have done either.
The effort is clearly aimed at people who are sharing their connections outside their homes. The article even has a diagram showing multiple homes. Take a look at this excerpt:
For example: Neighbor Bob buys cable modem service and a wireless home network. Neighbors Carol, Ted and Alice don't buy cable modem service, but they go out and buy antennas compatible with Neighbor Bob's wireless network. Everybody agrees to share Neighbor Bob's connection.
If you have a problem with trying to stop this type of activity, then you also probably think it would be OK to run phone line from your house to your neighbor's house, since you "pay for the bandwidth and can do whatever you wish with it." You would probably think it's OK to run Cat 5 or fiber all over your neighborhood too.
If Comcast tries to make me pay extra for having three networked computers, I'll be as angry as the next geek. But sheez, let's tone down the hype until that actually happens.
The fan motor will keep your hand warm. The whole unit is like a thermos. How does it know?
...Transparent clothing with smoothly moving semi-transparent areas ....
...She dimmed the lights and slowly turned off her blouse.
Why spend the $3,000 for this when a $100 razor scooter accomplishes virtually the same effect?
Why buy a $1500 computer with MS Word when a typewriter accomplishes virtually the same effect? This thing is much more than a couple wheels and a motor. It automatically moves itself to keep the wheels under you. You can't fall over on it, unless you deliberately try (and even that requires some effort, from what I understand.) I could easily see this technology replacing the attempts to put legs on robots in order to mimic human mobility. But then again, what do we need robots for, when we already have people?
I don't care about the "scooter" application either, but this technology has a zillion applications for anyone or anything that needs to be moved, lifted, transported, etc.
unless you count some lame overpriced scooter...
When I was 11 I got a mechanical pong game for Christmas. That's right, mechanical...A tv-shaped box with a frosted screen, behind which a moving arm with a light on the end of it swept back and forth (quite audibly, I might add). We chased the light with a little paddle that was moved with pulleys and string.
Over the years I've seen many useless upgrades come and go...video pong and "tennis" hardwired into a game console, more flexible consoles that accepted cartriges, even better consoles with high speed, 3-D graphics, etc. But I've never understood why I should shell out my hard earned cash for a lame overpriced Playstation, Nintendo, or X-box when my old mechanical Pong box works just fine. Those dumb games will never amount to anything because I see no need to own one.
Why use email when I can write a letter. Why use cable when I can dial in. Why carry a cell phone when I can wait till I get home to call.
It's the TECHNOLOGY, not the application, that is noteworthy. People here, of all places, should understand that.
unless you count some lame overpriced scooter...
I tell you, I just don't understand the animosity toward this amazing technology. I was hoping the subject would come up again today after people had actually SEEN it, but no such luck. For those of you who haven't seen it in action: this machine actually keeps balance. It reproduces an extremely intricate function of our brain and nervous system. Here's what the story on Time.com says:
Pulling off this trick requires an unholy amount of computer power. In every Segway there are 10 microprocessors cranking out three PCs' worth of juice. Also a cluster of aviation-grade gyros, an accelerometer, a bevy of sensors, two batteries and software so sophisticated it puts Microsoft to shame.
If that's not news for nerds, I don't know what is. Non-closed-minded people should check out the story at the link above. The rest of you can carry on with the discussion about which amazing new game you can play while your fat ass is plastered to the couch.