Anyone who thinks this research is about learning how to cut in line needs to read the article. This is about what kinds of line-cutting annoys other line-goers the most.
Another way to look at this is as disturbing a stable system to learn about it. People line up in queues everywhere, and do it without even thinking. This generates several interesting questions: Why? (is it a learned action?) What causes people to dislike it when people cut?(from individual standpoints, someone cutting in line behind you doesn't affect you at all) Why do some people cut in line, and others wait in line? By watching what happens when these lines get undermined, you can learn a bit about why they're created, as well as the respective thought processes.
The point of the research is to try to understand the whole queueing process, not to learn how to be a dick.
While some people seem to claim that these is a new idea, something similar to this has already been implemented: namely Dance Dance Revolution. Whether the games can be implemented well is key for whether or not it will have similar popularity. However, I doubt that these games will have the same impact as DDR, as the game was designed and marketed in a very specific way. I've met some people who use it to lose weight, but most people who need to lose weight won't play the game long enough to get addicted.
I say this, because there is generally a period of time after someone starts playing a game before they start to get hooked. For some games it might be 10 minutes, others it could be a few hours. If the player/exerciser doesn't get hooked before they get tired, they probably won't come back.
Now, some people might say "well, if they're trying to exercise, they'll force themselves to play". And that's technically true. However, if the person isn't enjoying it, they might as well just be exercising the normal way.
What I'm not getting is why this is a big issue? As long as you sign up with a email service that doesn't arbitrarily sell your email address to advertising companies, you won't get (much) junk email on the account. (I say 'much' because of the few spammers that happen to hit the address by accident - which are caught by gmail due to the massive BCC's) Most of the junk mail is due to people signing up for websites, forums, etc., or posting their email address somewhere where a crawler can find it.
A seven year old child won't be using their email on websites anywhere near enough to generate a large amount of spam. I have several email addresses that I have had for years that I get *maybe* one or two spam mails a month. I have never received a single inappropriate spam on those accounts. (Yes, I do use those accounts: they don't just sit there).
In other words: if the child's email starts getting some inappropriate mails, then he/she has probably been visiting a few pages that were inappropriate, or at least not protecting their address properly. To prevent this, maybe it would be better to use a parental program to restrict bad webpages instead?
This also might be a good opportunity to teach them about internet safety. (IE: don't give out personal information online)
Well, putting aside the problems with having a small group of people censor the internet, tasking this to a large group of people brings in other problems that didn't even exist with small groups. Here's a cute example:
Take a group of religions with websites. Each one considers all the others 'offensive', so they try to make an effort to have all of the other religions' websites censored.(the rationale may be "so what if its not child porn, it's still offensive") As a result, every single site has a large number of votes to be taken down. While it's somewhat karmic (I'd laugh), does the government plan on preventing this by having individuals go through and check every site that gets taken down? That's a lot of manpower necessary.
While this is a bit of a stretch, if you multiply this by all the groups in france for various organizations, beliefs, etc, something stupid is bound to happen.
(ie. Banning wikipedia for having an entry on pedophilia?) There's too many people that disagree with each other that there are gonna be problems.
This isn't a closed system. While they say that almost no input is required from the driver except for a bottle of water every now and then, that's _NOT_ a closed system. A closed system would run forever, never need input, and run perfectly. Besides, I would be surprised if there weren't other inputs as well, such as a battery and whatnot.
The question here is how do they separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen in an efficient way? That's the value in this technology.
By the way, they never claimed that the cycle is 2H20->2H2 O2 ->2H20. They claim 2H20->2H2 O2, and then H2 is consumed. Also, if they can use some of the produced H2 or O2 to ease the production of more, then all the better. (That's not perpetual motion, that's feedback. It's not positive feedback, it's feedback with a ratio less than 1, which is possible AND practical)
It's not that they are claiming this is perpetual motion or that they are making energy from nothing. It's pretty much been shown that thats impossible. However, they are claiming that they can use water to run the car, by separating the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Modern cars run on gas, but they still use a battery to light the gas. I expect that there is some technology that they haven't revealed the trick to that is used to effectively and efficiently break the water up. (That would be the real technological value of this car) I wouldn't be surprised if there's some other battery-like requirement to the car. It could be a battery, or it could be some chemical that's used very slowly. ("Replace XXXX every 20000 km) We don't know yet.
Keep in mind, if this company were claiming a perpetual motion machine, this car would never need anything added to it (not even that litre-bottle every 80km). Instead, they are claiming a very high efficiency, with very little waste. If they can use the oxygen generated to help break up more water, that can easily make the cycle more efficient. (keep in mind, the laws of physics state that it can't be run ENTIRELY on the oxygen generated, but feedback can help the cycle)
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who thinks this research is about learning how to cut in line needs to read the article. This is about what kinds of line-cutting annoys other line-goers the most.
Another way to look at this is as disturbing a stable system to learn about it. People line up in queues everywhere, and do it without even thinking. This generates several interesting questions: Why? (is it a learned action?) What causes people to dislike it when people cut?(from individual standpoints, someone cutting in line behind you doesn't affect you at all) Why do some people cut in line, and others wait in line? By watching what happens when these lines get undermined, you can learn a bit about why they're created, as well as the respective thought processes.
The point of the research is to try to understand the whole queueing process, not to learn how to be a dick.
While some people seem to claim that these is a new idea, something similar to this has already been implemented: namely Dance Dance Revolution. Whether the games can be implemented well is key for whether or not it will have similar popularity. However, I doubt that these games will have the same impact as DDR, as the game was designed and marketed in a very specific way. I've met some people who use it to lose weight, but most people who need to lose weight won't play the game long enough to get addicted.
I say this, because there is generally a period of time after someone starts playing a game before they start to get hooked. For some games it might be 10 minutes, others it could be a few hours. If the player/exerciser doesn't get hooked before they get tired, they probably won't come back.
Now, some people might say "well, if they're trying to exercise, they'll force themselves to play". And that's technically true. However, if the person isn't enjoying it, they might as well just be exercising the normal way.
What I'm not getting is why this is a big issue? As long as you sign up with a email service that doesn't arbitrarily sell your email address to advertising companies, you won't get (much) junk email on the account. (I say 'much' because of the few spammers that happen to hit the address by accident - which are caught by gmail due to the massive BCC's) Most of the junk mail is due to people signing up for websites, forums, etc., or posting their email address somewhere where a crawler can find it.
A seven year old child won't be using their email on websites anywhere near enough to generate a large amount of spam. I have several email addresses that I have had for years that I get *maybe* one or two spam mails a month. I have never received a single inappropriate spam on those accounts. (Yes, I do use those accounts: they don't just sit there).
In other words: if the child's email starts getting some inappropriate mails, then he/she has probably been visiting a few pages that were inappropriate, or at least not protecting their address properly. To prevent this, maybe it would be better to use a parental program to restrict bad webpages instead?
This also might be a good opportunity to teach them about internet safety. (IE: don't give out personal information online)
Well, putting aside the problems with having a small group of people censor the internet, tasking this to a large group of people brings in other problems that didn't even exist with small groups. Here's a cute example:
Take a group of religions with websites. Each one considers all the others 'offensive', so they try to make an effort to have all of the other religions' websites censored.(the rationale may be "so what if its not child porn, it's still offensive") As a result, every single site has a large number of votes to be taken down. While it's somewhat karmic (I'd laugh), does the government plan on preventing this by having individuals go through and check every site that gets taken down? That's a lot of manpower necessary.
While this is a bit of a stretch, if you multiply this by all the groups in france for various organizations, beliefs, etc, something stupid is bound to happen. (ie. Banning wikipedia for having an entry on pedophilia?) There's too many people that disagree with each other that there are gonna be problems.
Well, at least there's still Peacefire.
This isn't a closed system. While they say that almost no input is required from the driver except for a bottle of water every now and then, that's _NOT_ a closed system. A closed system would run forever, never need input, and run perfectly. Besides, I would be surprised if there weren't other inputs as well, such as a battery and whatnot. The question here is how do they separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen in an efficient way? That's the value in this technology. By the way, they never claimed that the cycle is 2H20->2H2 O2 ->2H20. They claim 2H20->2H2 O2, and then H2 is consumed. Also, if they can use some of the produced H2 or O2 to ease the production of more, then all the better. (That's not perpetual motion, that's feedback. It's not positive feedback, it's feedback with a ratio less than 1, which is possible AND practical)
It's not that they are claiming this is perpetual motion or that they are making energy from nothing. It's pretty much been shown that thats impossible. However, they are claiming that they can use water to run the car, by separating the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Modern cars run on gas, but they still use a battery to light the gas. I expect that there is some technology that they haven't revealed the trick to that is used to effectively and efficiently break the water up. (That would be the real technological value of this car) I wouldn't be surprised if there's some other battery-like requirement to the car. It could be a battery, or it could be some chemical that's used very slowly. ("Replace XXXX every 20000 km) We don't know yet. Keep in mind, if this company were claiming a perpetual motion machine, this car would never need anything added to it (not even that litre-bottle every 80km). Instead, they are claiming a very high efficiency, with very little waste. If they can use the oxygen generated to help break up more water, that can easily make the cycle more efficient. (keep in mind, the laws of physics state that it can't be run ENTIRELY on the oxygen generated, but feedback can help the cycle)