Thank you, I likewise respect your view and agree that the battery problem is a pressing issue with Segway.
You would like me to counter your points. Let me re-iterate your points as I understand them in order that you may correct me if I have erred.
1. You state that rollerblades and the like are existing, better alternatives to Segway for the purpose of pedestrian level vehicular movement.
2. You state that Segway cannot succeed as a street vehicle (I agree), but that it also cannot succeed as a pedestrian vehicle because it poses a danger to pedestrians, just as do the other (outlawed) vehicles.
My counter to these points is that 1. Segway is as maneuverable or moreso than the other vehicles, can travel as fast or faster, is more stable, and requires less operator input of energy. Therefore it does improve over the other vehicles (though at large monetary cost; the willingness of an individual to pay for these particular improvements is a subjective economic issue).
2. Segway poses less of a danger to pedestrians because it has controlled systems that can more safely reduce its speed in a crisis, and does not impinge on pedestrians' persons because of its slim profile.
Your counterpoint to 1. is that Segway's battery may fail. This depends on terrain and the nature of your destination. Note that, while going uphill is battery intensive, going down hill is not, and will reclaim some of that lost energy. Furthermore, if there is an electrical outlet at my destination, I can plug it in while I work, and then set out again partially or even fully recharged. Range is only limited by the chemistry of the battery; the specific ranges you listed are actually quite attainable with a Segway, and this can only improve with improvements in cell technology.
I will acknowledge I am not well versed in the fine details of stopping while on rollerblades, etc. But you do say "common sense" "people with half a brain" won't go full speed, or if they do, can execute one of these plans to stop. However, those plans ("turning your momentum into rotation") do require some level of skill to execute and may result in loss of balance: 1) Stopping a skateboard "takes some balance." 2) Turning your momentum into rotation is really, really going to require adjustment of balance. 3) I concede braking on bicycles is very effective. Segway's advantage to the bicycle is really in the area of "saving work."
Loss of balance, especially unexpected loss of balance, is what is really dangerous to operator and pedestrian, and it is a very immediate concern on 1) and 2). On the Segway, balance is not an issue, at all. This is a definite improvement, both over existing vehicles and for pedestrian safety.
As for stopping, true, "Segway doesn't exempt you from the laws of physics." I did not mean to imply one can stop instantaneously on Segway. But your assessment is also erroneous. On a Segway, one cannot "pull a sudden stop" (unlike, say, on a bicycle), in other words, reduce velocity of vehicle too quickly relative to velocity of operator, because the Segway's computer system is controlling the reduction of velocity. The system has been tuned to prevent this. Losing your balance is again a non-issue; the system was designed to address this point from the very start. Operator skill factors only as much as it does in any of the other vehicles (perhaps less so because the operator is assisted by the computer).
Have you ridden one? I have. I am not convinced by your arguments.
1) Rollerblades require some sense of balance, Segway does not. Rollerblades do not "work better" in preventing you from falling over or getting you up a hill quickly with minimal effort.
2) Same with bicycles.
3) Step onto a skateboard. Make a ninety degree turn without forward motion (and, obviously, without dismounting, pickup up the board, and setting it back down). Segway can, skateboard cannot. They are not equally maneuverable.
In addition to which, Segway is battery powered, not operator powered. You get the benefit of the other vehicles (faster transit) without the cost (physical exertion that varies with terrain).
All of which is really building up to this: 4) These alternatives are not used on sidewalks because they pose a danger to pedestrians. Why? They are hard to stop.
If you are travelling some speed on any of these and wish to, say, avoid a pedestrian, you must either maneuver to avoid the obstacle, or reduce your speed, possibly to a stop. All of these vehicles are pretty equal when you can make the evasive maneuver, though Segway benefits over bicycle by having a profile negligibly different from another pedestrian.
But let us assume the worst case, and you must come to a sudden complete stop. This is tricky on all the man-powered vehicles, especially rollerblades, because there is little you can do to reduce your speed. Rollerblades? Forget it, you might as well just plow right through. Bicycles? Yes, there are brakes, but you'll need some stopping room if you don't want to through yourself over the handlebars. Skateboard? Bail, I guess.
However, with Segway, stopping is trivial, because the motors reabsorb the momentum as quickly as they produced it (in fact, they put the energy back into the battery). Furthermore, the operator needs exert only minimal effort to effect stopping - merely a (natural) recoiling backwards - thus reducing the time between "assessment of stopping situation" and "full stop." This even mitigates collision situations, should the operator fail to lean backwards to prevent it, because colliding with an obstacle will alter the balance of the vehicle, kicking in the motors, and reducing the net force against the obstacle.
As a matter of fact, they put a lot of thought into this pogo stick. It really does provide the groundwork for a solution to powered pedestrian travel. I do agree it's aiming too high right now: it's weight, limited range, and price tag are all valid counts against it. But it does make real improvements over existing vehicles for pedestrian-level traffic.
An 8600? That would be running what OS? Certainly not OS X, I'd wager. Probably more like OS 8, which barely supports multithreading, or even OS 7, which has even less. Even OS 9 still locks most threads (including sockets) when you drop down a menu. In other words, your comparisons are faulty: NT 4 has robust multithreading, so it wouldn't display the lockdown that you see on Mac OS 8 or earlier.
As for your 486 running faster than an 8600, do you mean for general OS performance, or for actual comparable applications? My 486 would barely run a graphics program, which the 8600s I've used handle passably (not wonderfully, but better). So at that point, it's subjective word-against-word.
In any case, that's all old news. The reason today's Macs excite us (or me, anyway) is that they offer very spiffy design on very solid, quick performance. You say Macs are not "faster, cheaper, more stable systems." If, for such systems, you mean Linux, I can't argue with you. I would claim, though, that the newest Macs match or best top-flight Windows systems for performance (thanks to G4/Velocity) and stability (thanks to OS X's BSD core). Then, what you get for the extra "expense" is a tastefully designed, fully integrated yet completely flexible computer and GUI. To re-iterate, over Windows, you gain even more stability, possibly some speed, and a full set of command line tools. Over Linux/other *NIXes, you get a snappy, consistent GUI and access to more applications.
Personally, I use all three, depending on the task. I mostly just find Macs a nicer environment to work in.
Hey, that was probably me selling the glow sticks. Say what you want, I'm having a blast riding the Segs and not really caring whether I sell anything. But you shouldn't expect any better.
I mean, this is the Walt Disney company, the people who shat out "Hunchback of Notre Dame 2" and California Adventure in the quest for profit. You should have lost your respect for us long ago.
10000 years or more _is_ a geologically small amount of time. 1 million years is, geologically, a blip.
The "why not do this" includes: 1) If you think it's hard to haul waste to Nevada by train, try putting it on a (easily sinkable) boat... _after_ hauling it to the port on a train. 2) "Dropping" it in a subduction zone means setting up drilling operations in a geologically active area of deep water (miles deep). This is not cheap nor easy.
Why drilling? The ocean floor is really two layers: ocean crust, made of rock that will subduct; and sediment, made of lots of stuff that won't subduct (not dense enough). While the plate subducts, most of that sediment just piles up (the term is "accretionary wedge"). So if you just drop waste on top of the sediment, guess where it's not going? You have to drill pretty deep and be absolutely sure you've stuffed the waste into ocean crust, not sediment.
Dollar for dollar, building a facility underground in Nevada is probably cheaper than setting up deep water drilling - outside any U. S. border.
Slashdot Mirror
And the gaming packages will be Direct UNG's Not GNU?
Straight male between 12 and dead.
Ah, the benefits of one-handed typing and wankers, all at the same time!
Thank you, I likewise respect your view and agree that the battery problem is a pressing issue with Segway.
You would like me to counter your points. Let me re-iterate your points as I understand them in order that you may correct me if I have erred.
1. You state that rollerblades and the like are existing, better alternatives to Segway for the purpose of pedestrian level vehicular movement.
2. You state that Segway cannot succeed as a street vehicle (I agree), but that it also cannot succeed as a pedestrian vehicle because it poses a danger to pedestrians, just as do the other (outlawed) vehicles.
My counter to these points is that
1. Segway is as maneuverable or moreso than the other vehicles, can travel as fast or faster, is more stable, and requires less operator input of energy. Therefore it does improve over the other vehicles (though at large monetary cost; the willingness of an individual to pay for these particular improvements is a subjective economic issue).
2. Segway poses less of a danger to pedestrians because it has controlled systems that can more safely reduce its speed in a crisis, and does not impinge on pedestrians' persons because of its slim profile.
Your counterpoint to 1. is that Segway's battery may fail. This depends on terrain and the nature of your destination. Note that, while going uphill is battery intensive, going down hill is not, and will reclaim some of that lost energy. Furthermore, if there is an electrical outlet at my destination, I can plug it in while I work, and then set out again partially or even fully recharged. Range is only limited by the chemistry of the battery; the specific ranges you listed are actually quite attainable with a Segway, and this can only improve with improvements in cell technology.
I will acknowledge I am not well versed in the fine details of stopping while on rollerblades, etc. But you do say "common sense" "people with half a brain" won't go full speed, or if they do, can execute one of these plans to stop. However, those plans ("turning your momentum into rotation") do require some level of skill to execute and may result in loss of balance:
1) Stopping a skateboard "takes some balance."
2) Turning your momentum into rotation is really, really going to require adjustment of balance.
3) I concede braking on bicycles is very effective. Segway's advantage to the bicycle is really in the area of "saving work."
Loss of balance, especially unexpected loss of balance, is what is really dangerous to operator and pedestrian, and it is a very immediate concern on 1) and 2). On the Segway, balance is not an issue, at all. This is a definite improvement, both over existing vehicles and for pedestrian safety.
As for stopping, true, "Segway doesn't exempt you from the laws of physics." I did not mean to imply one can stop instantaneously on Segway. But your assessment is also erroneous. On a Segway, one cannot "pull a sudden stop" (unlike, say, on a bicycle), in other words, reduce velocity of vehicle too quickly relative to velocity of operator, because the Segway's computer system is controlling the reduction of velocity. The system has been tuned to prevent this. Losing your balance is again a non-issue; the system was designed to address this point from the very start. Operator skill factors only as much as it does in any of the other vehicles (perhaps less so because the operator is assisted by the computer).
Have I addressed your points?
Have you ridden one? I have. I am not convinced by your arguments.
1) Rollerblades require some sense of balance, Segway does not. Rollerblades do not "work better" in preventing you from falling over or getting you up a hill quickly with minimal effort.
2) Same with bicycles.
3) Step onto a skateboard. Make a ninety degree turn without forward motion (and, obviously, without dismounting, pickup up the board, and setting it back down). Segway can, skateboard cannot. They are not equally maneuverable.
In addition to which, Segway is battery powered, not operator powered. You get the benefit of the other vehicles (faster transit) without the cost (physical exertion that varies with terrain).
All of which is really building up to this:
4) These alternatives are not used on sidewalks because they pose a danger to pedestrians. Why? They are hard to stop.
If you are travelling some speed on any of these and wish to, say, avoid a pedestrian, you must either maneuver to avoid the obstacle, or reduce your speed, possibly to a stop. All of these vehicles are pretty equal when you can make the evasive maneuver, though Segway benefits over bicycle by having a profile negligibly different from another pedestrian.
But let us assume the worst case, and you must come to a sudden complete stop. This is tricky on all the man-powered vehicles, especially rollerblades, because there is little you can do to reduce your speed. Rollerblades? Forget it, you might as well just plow right through. Bicycles? Yes, there are brakes, but you'll need some stopping room if you don't want to through yourself over the handlebars. Skateboard? Bail, I guess.
However, with Segway, stopping is trivial, because the motors reabsorb the momentum as quickly as they produced it (in fact, they put the energy back into the battery). Furthermore, the operator needs exert only minimal effort to effect stopping - merely a (natural) recoiling backwards - thus reducing the time between "assessment of stopping situation" and "full stop." This even mitigates collision situations, should the operator fail to lean backwards to prevent it, because colliding with an obstacle will alter the balance of the vehicle, kicking in the motors, and reducing the net force against the obstacle.
As a matter of fact, they put a lot of thought into this pogo stick. It really does provide the groundwork for a solution to powered pedestrian travel. I do agree it's aiming too high right now: it's weight, limited range, and price tag are all valid counts against it. But it does make real improvements over existing vehicles for pedestrian-level traffic.
As for your 486 running faster than an 8600, do you mean for general OS performance, or for actual comparable applications? My 486 would barely run a graphics program, which the 8600s I've used handle passably (not wonderfully, but better). So at that point, it's subjective word-against-word.
In any case, that's all old news. The reason today's Macs excite us (or me, anyway) is that they offer very spiffy design on very solid, quick performance. You say Macs are not "faster, cheaper, more stable systems." If, for such systems, you mean Linux, I can't argue with you. I would claim, though, that the newest Macs match or best top-flight Windows systems for performance (thanks to G4/Velocity) and stability (thanks to OS X's BSD core). Then, what you get for the extra "expense" is a tastefully designed, fully integrated yet completely flexible computer and GUI. To re-iterate, over Windows, you gain even more stability, possibly some speed, and a full set of command line tools. Over Linux/other *NIXes, you get a snappy, consistent GUI and access to more applications.
Personally, I use all three, depending on the task. I mostly just find Macs a nicer environment to work in.
Oh, wait, did I just violate the "trade secrets" section of my contract?
I mean, this is the Walt Disney company, the people who shat out "Hunchback of Notre Dame 2" and California Adventure in the quest for profit. You should have lost your respect for us long ago.
10000 years or more _is_ a geologically small amount of time. 1 million years is, geologically, a blip.
The "why not do this" includes:
1) If you think it's hard to haul waste to Nevada by train, try putting it on a (easily sinkable) boat... _after_ hauling it to the port on a train.
2) "Dropping" it in a subduction zone means setting up drilling operations in a geologically active area of deep water (miles deep). This is not cheap nor easy.
Why drilling? The ocean floor is really two layers: ocean crust, made of rock that will subduct; and sediment, made of lots of stuff that won't subduct (not dense enough). While the plate subducts, most of that sediment just piles up (the term is "accretionary wedge"). So if you just drop waste on top of the sediment, guess where it's not going? You have to drill pretty deep and be absolutely sure you've stuffed the waste into ocean crust, not sediment.
Dollar for dollar, building a facility underground in Nevada is probably cheaper than setting up deep water drilling - outside any U. S. border.