Stirling engines are also much more expensive than regular engines. That is the main reason why they are not very common.
Otherwise they would be installed on the outside part of an airconditioner, allowing you to increase efficency by recovering the differnce in heat between the hot side of the air-conditioner heat and the warm outside air. (You could not recover the the enenergy from the cold side because it takes energy to make it cold and you WANT it cold, so you would use up more energy than you generate.)
And Stirling engines do NOT boil. They are entirely gas based, with no liquid phase.
Go back and re-read the article. They are describign a battery system, so they NEED a storage medium, not a fuel source. The idea is that during charging periods you drain some of the electricity to turn water to hydrogen and store it, allowing the Oxygen to escape.
Then when you need the power, you turn on the fuel cell and convert the hydrogen and free oxygen in the air into water plus power.
The scheme is basically a battery back up, with a specific type of battery mentioned. While they did not give stats explaining why they think a Hydrogen fuelcell battery should be the type of battery needed, none of the systems you mentioned are at ALL possible to be used as the battery. They are fuel sources, not relevant to this battery idea.
This idea clearly has certain merits, one of which is equally distrubited drain. (As in, we can store energy during summer nights when the drain is lesser, and use up some of that stored energy during the days when we have our dishwasher, clother dryer and air conditioner on full blast)
However, basically they are just saying get a big battery (and trying to convince us that a hydrogen fuel cell system would be the right kind of battery)
Every time you load and unload the battery their are efficiancy losses and of course there is the price of the battery, including service/repair/eventual replacement.
They did not address those issues, and so were not very convincing to me.
While the real article was not up for very long, there were several links to valid info about the product. If you clicked on anything related to it, you quickly found out that your choices did not affect anyone but you.
More importantly, if you did not get any of the details, then people should keep their mouths shut. What would you think about someone that gave a review of a movie, after they saw the "previews", without ever seeing the movie?
Finally, this fact SHOULD have been obvious to anyone that thought about the issue for a second. Instead they assumed the product was done stupidly, without bothering to think, hey maybe the person that did this is not incredibally stupid, and has considered this issue. The people that posted using this erroneous views did not read any of the various links that were posted, and did not bother to spend 5 seconds thinking things through.
They put Smart Codes up solely on speculation. They admitted they are of limited use now, but personally think that they will become valuable in the future.
This makes me wonder about their judgement in general. I personally would have included Mutual Funds, a concept that got a LOT more people involved in the Stock Market.
While posters seem to have high programming skills, most people here are assuming that your thumbs up/down affect other people's searches. That is not the case.
This is not the first time I have seen people make similar dumb mistakes.
I think it has to do with not reading the actual article/sample./.ers tend to skim a lot.
If your brother's situation is accurately described and he is spotless clean (as in he never ever so much as let a friend post anything that the brother did not write to the service)
then I strongly suggest you contact the ACLU.
They will take your case for free. They will sue the RIAA and can do it as a class action for them to cease and desist issuing subpoenas etc. etc.
This is the kin of thing they love, and the reason why they exist: to stop companies and government agencies from using/abusing laws to illegally hurt the littel guy.
While yes the sensory stuff is pretty limited, some of the other stuff is impressive.
I understand that the limbs can now have a grip that is significantly stronger than a human (But do not expect super strong weight lifting - that would detach the limbs from the bones they are bolted on to.)
They also now have a motorized wheel chair that can be controlled using radio signals from a chip implanted into your brain. While this is still considered experimental, it is being tested on live quadreplegic human beings
To me, this says that a non-antropomorphic Cyborg is a viable cration. I.E. take the controls for the wheel chair and install them in something cool instead of small - say a race car, (or maybe a fighter jet if you are a super secret governement spy.)
You would consider someone with:
[li]two cybernetic eyes
[li]two cybernetic ears
[li]two cybernetic arms
[li]two cybernetic legs
[li]one cybernetic heart
[li]and the cybernetic brain implant to help them run all this stuff we implanted
to be a normal human, no a "full-on sci-fi Cyborg"
That description certainly fits my idea of a full-on sci-fi cyborg.
He is thinking about how hard it is to use metal detectors and xrays type machines to find weapons and bombs when people will have a lot more pieces of metals in their body and.
Of course, he fails to realize that as our Cyborg tech goes UP, so will our weapon detection technology. I sincerely doubt that the Borg would use magnetomers and xrays to screen for weapons.
I strongly disagree. (First of all the segway was not "ahead of it's time" it was an incredibally more expensive User Interface attached to a motorized skateboard. The creator thought the U.I. was worth a ton of extra money. This is known as stupidity.)
And this kind of convention HAS to be done excessively ahead of their time. Because science is often revolutionary, not evolutionary. In 1860, Heavier than air flight was considered impossible. 50 years later flight was common. 50 years after that they had space flight.
We are not dictators, but a democracy. As such it takes us years to come up with a law, decades to come up with a GOOD law. We need to start thinking about and discussing things before they happen so that we will have time to come up with a good law instead of putting something on the books in a hurray because the TV is demanding weekends off.
Repair jobs are the hardest thing in the world to do, far harder than building something in the first place. (Take humans for example. 9 months and we can build a new human - but doctors do not know how to repair most of the more serious problems even today.)
It will take several generations of robots that can build another robot before they get to the point where they can self-repair.
Totally and completely irrelevant, considering what we know about what really happened. Below are the facts that NO one of any reputation disputes.
1) Democrats won the popular vote. All the Republicans admit this. So what, we use an Electoral college.
2) Several county that typically votes overwhelming in favor of Democrats went to Republicans. Worse, outside polls of the people resulted in clear predictions that they had voted for the Democrats. Most people believe this was an accident related to a poorly designed but officially approved butterfly ballot. If the outside polls are an accurate reflection of how people attempted to vote, then Gore would have won, even if the Republicans got the Military vote and the Democrats did not get any of the "questionable votes".
3)[b]Most importantly, all of the above is meaningless, because according to Florida state law, when their vote is close(Which you have to be an idiot not to believe), the State Legislator is REQUIRED to over-ride the statewide popular vote and declare who gets their Electoral College.[/b]. Hell, that's 1/2 the reason why we use an Electoral College in the first place. This would surely have given Bush the Presidency, but probalby would have got them fired come their own personal re-election campaign. They refused to do, allowing for a bunch of legal shennanigans that were ridiculous.
The only real shame is that the Republicans Legislatures were too scared to over-ride the state wide vote and stand up and say "We don't care what the vote says, we vote for Bush."
They were a bunch of cowards, who made a laughing stock of this great country.
Basically his theory is that robots will work so cheaply, that it no human would take a job at that price.
Therefore this idiot believes, all jobs will be taken by robots. The big corporations would continue to make a profit, which the governement will tax, and then provide welfare to the unemployed people.
He then thinks the people will use their welfare to pay for low end barely surving stuff, built by robots.
OK, let's actually assume this junk is true.
What would the intelligent unemployed people do?
Not go to war/revolution - that would be for the stupid unemployed people. The smart people would:
Go to school/become an artist. Remember, robots have supposedly made EVERYTHING cheaper, so even someone on welfare should be able to afford advanced schooling. This leaves the developed world with 4 classes of people: Stupid Dolists, Rich Robot Factory Owners, Educated Scientists, and Artists. That is not a bad situation. In fact, it sounds like a pretty good way to run the world to me. Of course, I assume that Stupid Dolists will be about 25% of the population, Rich Robot Factory Owners (via inheritance) will end up about 15% of the population, lleaving Scientists at 25% and Artists at 35%.
Of course, I do not really think this will happen. Instead, I think new jobs for humans will slowly be created as the old jobs go away. In home Robot Repair will be high on the list, as well as Robot Support Phone line.
8 out of 10 sexual crimes against kids are committed by relatives.
of the remaining 20%, 8 out of 10 sexual crimes against kids are committed by friends of the family.
If you think it is "OK" to invade people's privacy in order to protect the kids, then you are really saying it is OK to invade your personal privacy. With hidden cameras in your kid's bedroom, placed there by cops who do NOT tell you.
Are you willing to do this?
If not, then you should shut up about trying to invade MY privacy to protect your kids, because frankly, you are not serious about protecting kids.
Part of that could just be the difference between Swing and Ballroom dances.
In swing, most of the lead is in the hand/arm.
In many ball room dances, the lead is more in the chest, and in many ways is simpler. The basic rule is stay in front of the leader's chest, and try to face him.
In Tango for example, the ideal would be to dance totally leading from the chest - it can even be done without actual contact relying on your eyes to tell you where your partner's chest is and which direction they are facing. This is of course an ideal, and very difficult. Often people will practice dancing with only one handed embrace.
While this robot is working off of contact, this contact can basically tell them the simpler directions of staying in from on the leader's chest and turn to face him.
P.S. The simplicity of the lead in Tango can be very deceptive. Not only does it leave certain moves (Embelishments) up to the follower, but it also creates complexity out of simplicity by giving more instructions - Binary is a "simple" language with only two letters, that achieves complexity by grouping those letters close together for each command.
I think it would be a GREAT tool to teach BEGINNERS.
I myself do some Lindy, but am mainly a Tango dancer.
One of the main problems beginners have is that they are generally learning by dancing with other beginners. If you can at least start dancing with a machine, you solve that problem completely.
Look you arrogant offtopic fool (that was an example not an argument), you can go around claiming that people should not be good, but the word good, when used in the "moral" sense as opposed to being used in the "good/better/best" sense, has a definite meaning.
If you disagree about what the word means in the virtuous sense, fine. Put out your defintion or stop trolling by disagreeing with my example. And offer proof that my definition is incorrect by showing a good action that does not qualify using my definition.
P.S. Are you one of those people that when someone says "Suppose you were driving to the bank..." you interrupt and say "I don't own a car?"
I did that to simplify things, and to demonstrate that he could in fact create one, by himself.
A photon or any matter just moving through space FULLY QUALIFIES as a machine, using the physicst defintion of a machine, and that is what we are using. This was a physical law , not an engineer's law, so we should use the physicist definition of a machine, and your definition is an engineer's definition. If you want to use your definition of "a traditional machine", fine. Make any object that revolves in an otherwise zero g, vacuum environment. They are using their own gravity to transmit force. They rotate forever.
But all of that is irrelant. It was just an example. My claim is that NONE of our physical laws prevent a perpuatal motion machine from existing, they just prevent you from doing any WORK by taking energy from the machine. Ask any intelligent college profossor, or other physicist which statement is true. Note, as most people assume you want to get free work out of the machine, you have to show them mine as an option, and ask them which is closer to the truth. Otherwise they will just spout out the shorter, simpler claim not bothering to explain what they really meant.
A lot of ethics can be codified, as long as you leave some key definitions vague.
Example, while different cultures differ on what types of actions are "morally good actions", the word good ALWAYS refers to actions that involve "one party making a willing sacrifice for the benefit of a worthy second party." But because different cultures have different opinions on what is or is not a "sacrifice", what is or is not a "benefit", and what is or is not a "worthy" party, they have different opinions on what is or is not a good action.
So he can "codify" and "define" ethical behavior, as long as he leaves certain key words undefined and people will go along with it as proven by the claim that "I know it when I see it" for pornography.
Slashdot Mirror
Otherwise they would be installed on the outside part of an airconditioner, allowing you to increase efficency by recovering the differnce in heat between the hot side of the air-conditioner heat and the warm outside air. (You could not recover the the enenergy from the cold side because it takes energy to make it cold and you WANT it cold, so you would use up more energy than you generate.)
And Stirling engines do NOT boil. They are entirely gas based, with no liquid phase.
Then when you need the power, you turn on the fuel cell and convert the hydrogen and free oxygen in the air into water plus power.
The scheme is basically a battery back up, with a specific type of battery mentioned. While they did not give stats explaining why they think a Hydrogen fuelcell battery should be the type of battery needed, none of the systems you mentioned are at ALL possible to be used as the battery. They are fuel sources, not relevant to this battery idea.
However, basically they are just saying get a big battery (and trying to convince us that a hydrogen fuel cell system would be the right kind of battery)
Every time you load and unload the battery their are efficiancy losses and of course there is the price of the battery, including service/repair/eventual replacement.
They did not address those issues, and so were not very convincing to me.
More importantly, if you did not get any of the details, then people should keep their mouths shut. What would you think about someone that gave a review of a movie, after they saw the "previews", without ever seeing the movie?
Finally, this fact SHOULD have been obvious to anyone that thought about the issue for a second. Instead they assumed the product was done stupidly, without bothering to think, hey maybe the person that did this is not incredibally stupid, and has considered this issue. The people that posted using this erroneous views did not read any of the various links that were posted, and did not bother to spend 5 seconds thinking things through.
This makes me wonder about their judgement in general. I personally would have included Mutual Funds, a concept that got a LOT more people involved in the Stock Market.
I am not impressed by their article.
This is not the first time I have seen people make similar dumb mistakes.
I think it has to do with not reading the actual article/sample. /.ers tend to skim a lot.
This is the kin of thing they love, and the reason why they exist: to stop companies and government agencies from using/abusing laws to illegally hurt the littel guy.
But that was what many of them believed.
We adopt and take care of any orphan that is too young to take care of themselves.
For that reason, there is only minor evolutionary pressure, if any, to maintain health after child-bearing years are over.
I understand that the limbs can now have a grip that is significantly stronger than a human (But do not expect super strong weight lifting - that would detach the limbs from the bones they are bolted on to.)
They also now have a motorized wheel chair that can be controlled using radio signals from a chip implanted into your brain. While this is still considered experimental, it is being tested on live quadreplegic human beings
To me, this says that a non-antropomorphic Cyborg is a viable cration. I.E. take the controls for the wheel chair and install them in something cool instead of small - say a race car, (or maybe a fighter jet if you are a super secret governement spy.)
People with Aids, Diabetes, on Dialysis, missing two limbs, that need a hearing aid, etc. etc. etc. are all evolutionary cheats.
On the other side, remember, evolution only eliminates the weak if the weakness happens BEFORE you parent a child.
It does not care at all about the old man that becomes infirm.
You would consider someone with: [li]two cybernetic eyes [li]two cybernetic ears [li]two cybernetic arms [li]two cybernetic legs [li]one cybernetic heart [li]and the cybernetic brain implant to help them run all this stuff we implanted
to be a normal human, no a "full-on sci-fi Cyborg"
That description certainly fits my idea of a full-on sci-fi cyborg.
Of course, he fails to realize that as our Cyborg tech goes UP, so will our weapon detection technology. I sincerely doubt that the Borg would use magnetomers and xrays to screen for weapons.
And this kind of convention HAS to be done excessively ahead of their time. Because science is often revolutionary, not evolutionary. In 1860, Heavier than air flight was considered impossible. 50 years later flight was common. 50 years after that they had space flight.
We are not dictators, but a democracy. As such it takes us years to come up with a law, decades to come up with a GOOD law. We need to start thinking about and discussing things before they happen so that we will have time to come up with a good law instead of putting something on the books in a hurray because the TV is demanding weekends off.
It will take several generations of robots that can build another robot before they get to the point where they can self-repair.
1) Democrats won the popular vote. All the Republicans admit this. So what, we use an Electoral college.
2) Several county that typically votes overwhelming in favor of Democrats went to Republicans. Worse, outside polls of the people resulted in clear predictions that they had voted for the Democrats. Most people believe this was an accident related to a poorly designed but officially approved butterfly ballot. If the outside polls are an accurate reflection of how people attempted to vote, then Gore would have won, even if the Republicans got the Military vote and the Democrats did not get any of the "questionable votes".
3)[b]Most importantly, all of the above is meaningless, because according to Florida state law, when their vote is close(Which you have to be an idiot not to believe), the State Legislator is REQUIRED to over-ride the statewide popular vote and declare who gets their Electoral College.[/b]. Hell, that's 1/2 the reason why we use an Electoral College in the first place. This would surely have given Bush the Presidency, but probalby would have got them fired come their own personal re-election campaign. They refused to do, allowing for a bunch of legal shennanigans that were ridiculous.
The only real shame is that the Republicans Legislatures were too scared to over-ride the state wide vote and stand up and say "We don't care what the vote says, we vote for Bush." They were a bunch of cowards, who made a laughing stock of this great country.
Therefore this idiot believes, all jobs will be taken by robots. The big corporations would continue to make a profit, which the governement will tax, and then provide welfare to the unemployed people.
He then thinks the people will use their welfare to pay for low end barely surving stuff, built by robots.
OK, let's actually assume this junk is true. What would the intelligent unemployed people do?
Not go to war/revolution - that would be for the stupid unemployed people. The smart people would: Go to school/become an artist. Remember, robots have supposedly made EVERYTHING cheaper, so even someone on welfare should be able to afford advanced schooling. This leaves the developed world with 4 classes of people: Stupid Dolists, Rich Robot Factory Owners, Educated Scientists, and Artists. That is not a bad situation. In fact, it sounds like a pretty good way to run the world to me. Of course, I assume that Stupid Dolists will be about 25% of the population, Rich Robot Factory Owners (via inheritance) will end up about 15% of the population, lleaving Scientists at 25% and Artists at 35%.
Of course, I do not really think this will happen. Instead, I think new jobs for humans will slowly be created as the old jobs go away. In home Robot Repair will be high on the list, as well as Robot Support Phone line.
of the remaining 20%, 8 out of 10 sexual crimes against kids are committed by friends of the family.
If you think it is "OK" to invade people's privacy in order to protect the kids, then you are really saying it is OK to invade your personal privacy. With hidden cameras in your kid's bedroom, placed there by cops who do NOT tell you.
Are you willing to do this?
If not, then you should shut up about trying to invade MY privacy to protect your kids, because frankly, you are not serious about protecting kids.
In swing, most of the lead is in the hand/arm.
In many ball room dances, the lead is more in the chest, and in many ways is simpler. The basic rule is stay in front of the leader's chest, and try to face him.
In Tango for example, the ideal would be to dance totally leading from the chest - it can even be done without actual contact relying on your eyes to tell you where your partner's chest is and which direction they are facing. This is of course an ideal, and very difficult. Often people will practice dancing with only one handed embrace.
While this robot is working off of contact, this contact can basically tell them the simpler directions of staying in from on the leader's chest and turn to face him.
P.S. The simplicity of the lead in Tango can be very deceptive. Not only does it leave certain moves (Embelishments) up to the follower, but it also creates complexity out of simplicity by giving more instructions - Binary is a "simple" language with only two letters, that achieves complexity by grouping those letters close together for each command.
I myself do some Lindy, but am mainly a Tango dancer.
One of the main problems beginners have is that they are generally learning by dancing with other beginners. If you can at least start dancing with a machine, you solve that problem completely.
,v means it has been ARCHIVED. try the command "co file,v"
The basic idea is that it will be a small thing that people will not use.
If you disagree about what the word means in the virtuous sense, fine. Put out your defintion or stop trolling by disagreeing with my example. And offer proof that my definition is incorrect by showing a good action that does not qualify using my definition.
P.S. Are you one of those people that when someone says "Suppose you were driving to the bank..." you interrupt and say "I don't own a car?"
A photon or any matter just moving through space FULLY QUALIFIES as a machine, using the physicst defintion of a machine, and that is what we are using. This was a physical law , not an engineer's law, so we should use the physicist definition of a machine, and your definition is an engineer's definition. If you want to use your definition of "a traditional machine", fine. Make any object that revolves in an otherwise zero g, vacuum environment. They are using their own gravity to transmit force. They rotate forever.
But all of that is irrelant. It was just an example. My claim is that NONE of our physical laws prevent a perpuatal motion machine from existing, they just prevent you from doing any WORK by taking energy from the machine. Ask any intelligent college profossor, or other physicist which statement is true. Note, as most people assume you want to get free work out of the machine, you have to show them mine as an option, and ask them which is closer to the truth. Otherwise they will just spout out the shorter, simpler claim not bothering to explain what they really meant.
Example, while different cultures differ on what types of actions are "morally good actions", the word good ALWAYS refers to actions that involve "one party making a willing sacrifice for the benefit of a worthy second party." But because different cultures have different opinions on what is or is not a "sacrifice", what is or is not a "benefit", and what is or is not a "worthy" party, they have different opinions on what is or is not a good action.
So he can "codify" and "define" ethical behavior, as long as he leaves certain key words undefined and people will go along with it as proven by the claim that "I know it when I see it" for pornography.