Nah mate - surely it'd just be easier to infect the royal family. There's less of them for a start, and what with all the in-breeding, they'd never notice *another* little passenger. Of course, that's assuming it can *survive* in an environment already so thuroughly colonised by gout, anaemia and syphillis.
Disclaimer: I am British, so I can say whatever the hell I like about the royals;-p
Oh great, encrypted sperm - does this mean we'll now all need a munitions licence to carry gonads across national borders?
Gives a whole new meaning to "playing with your weapon"...
An Extension of the iBot (with reasoning)
on
What is 'IT'?
·
· Score: 1
Taken from my posting to the MSNBC BBS on the topic:
On Tue Jan 9 23:13:29, Tritium wrote:
> This is part of one of Kamen's patents, and may be IT.
I think you're right. I think IT is a new type of "scooter", that uses dynamic-balancing tecnology that Kamen developed in the iBot. The iBot could balance fairly stably on only two wheels, even with a full load - you could push it or pull it, and it would compensate to remain balanced.
I think IT is a scooter that uses a similar system, but extended to allow it to do the same while moving. Leaning forwards would force the scooter to shuffle forwards to maintain equilibrium, but since you're standing on it it'll keep moving forwards. The further you lean forwards, the faster it'll go. Straighten up and it'll stop. Lean backwards and it'll move backwards. Since it only balances on two wheels, it would indeed look amusing - people would find it hard to believe that it wouldn't fall over, or at least be incredibly unstable. I don't know what the other two wheels (on each side) are for (in the image Tritium pointd to), but I'd guess they provide a way to smoothly scale even large obstructions, such as kerbs or flights of steps.
It would need some form of motive power, and I'd guess at an electric motor.
Reading the patent description whose number is on Tritium's image backs this up:
It fits all the clues:
not a medical invention
possible quick assembly from constituent modules, using only scredriver and hex wrench
disassembled, fits in a large duffel-bag
fun element - something which looks so absurdly unstable would make me laugh, especially when I realised it worked. I laughed when I first saw the iBot standing up, too.
Less than $2,000 - should be relatively cheap to mass-produce.
Two models - makes sense. You even get different models of those damn push-scooters now...
"a product so revolutionary, you'll have no problem selling it". Who hasn't wanted a skateboard/scooter/rollerblades that could climb stairs? Or not tip you over when you hit a crack in the pavement? Or safely navigate cobbles? I know I have, a thousand times.
"The question is, are people going to be allowed to use it?". Having people zipping around on pedestrian walkways on motorised scooters will give safety groups the jitters. OTOH, it looks too small and flimsy to compete with cars on the road.
"If enough people see the machine you won't have to convince them to architect cities around it. It'll just happen". It's a city-planner's dream - electrically-powered, no pollution, quiet, clean, fast, safe (if you're going to crash, just jump off), you name it. It dumps all over cycle-paths. Perhaps "Ginger-paths" next?
"will sweep over the world and change lives, cities, and ways of thinking". Hyperbole, sure, but it could replace bikes/skateboards/rollerblades entirely, and have a good crack at cars for short in-town journeys.
"The core technology and its implementations will... have a big, broad impact not only on social institutions but some billion-dollar old-line companies". Yah, like petrol companies, car companies, oil companies. Cheap, efficient electrically-powered, safe mass-transit devices? The petrol/car co's must be having a coronary at the mere thought.
"will profoundly affect our environment and the way people live worldwide". See points about cheap, clean transport, earlier.
"It will be an alternative to products that are dirty, expensive, sometimes dangerous and often frustrating, especially for people in the cities". IE, cars, bikes, the tube, buses, trains.
"IT will be a mass-market consumer product". At under $2,000, I'd want one.
"likely to run afoul of existing regulations and or inspire new ones... will also likely require meeting with city planners, regulators, legislators, large commercial companies and university presidents about how cities, companies and campuses can be retro-fitted for Ginger". See point earlier about how it couldn't safely mix with pedestrians or cars, but would probably need a cycle-path-type idea.
If there's anything I've missed, please let me know. This sounds about the coolest hting I've heard of in years, and I'm dying for 2002 to come around so I can find out if I was right or not;-)
Indeed - what stops Yahoo using SSL on the initial connection between them and the sender?
I'm no crypto or security expert, but it seems like a glaring hole that could be easily fixed. Any technical reasons why they can't?
I doubt they're worried about "locking out" people who don't have SSL-capable browsers, since they're quite happy to let half of the Yahoo forums (fora?) and things use cookies, and several browsers (eg, IE for the Mac) *still* don't support them...
Re:Just drug test the programmers
on
Death March
·
· Score: 1
Yes, yes, I know it's a troll, but I still had to respond.
Firstly, I like the idea of MS and IBM products shipping on time. Wish I could see his calendar. Be quite a sight, a calendar like that
Secondly, I (and most of the people I've spoken to) actually write slightly better code when I'm tipsy or slightly stoned. Dunno why, but maybe it has something to do with (hnnnngh) Thinking Out Of The Box. Try it some time - you might be surprised.
I've read most of the other posts, and I can't help feeling we're all missing the point here. Sure, Techies don't understand Law. Sure, Lawyers may even understand tech better than we understand Law...
However, never once have I ever heard of techies being involved in deciding what lawmakers can and cannot do (at least, to the extent that lawmakers are with tech). Techies may not understand law, but we employ Lawyers and Judges to do that for us. However, if Lawmakers are supposed to pass laws about technology, effectively telling techies what they can and can't do, don't they then have an obligation to understand the technology they're legislating about?
The way I see it, it should not be permissable to pass laws in an area unless you are sufficiently competent in the area to know what you're talking about.
>Why can art only be appreciated or even >recognized by the initiated?
You get more out of any artistic experience, the more you know about it, but some types of art are easier to appreciate (in ignorance) than others.
Architecture and painting (for example) are easy to appreciate, even for those who's never picked up a paintbrush (or CAD application) in their lives. However equally, no-one would expect someone to find a mathematical proof beautiful (closely related to "art") without a thorough grounding in maths (and often, not even then:-).
>It is possible that I don't understand the >brilliance behind a working application but I can >still percieve it as a fine piece of work.
Of course, but to do so based upon looks is only one aspect of the artistry. If you go solely by looks, Windows would be considered by many to be far more artistic than Linux/Unix (notice, please, that I make no such claim myself - I only indicate that many people may think so).
It is entirely possible to consider works of Mozart (for example) to be great solely because they look visually beautiful when written down on the stave, but to do so misses the entire point of the art itself. If someone says that Mozart was a genius because he wrote neatly, everyone realises that they are completely missing the point - why should software be any different? In fact, the only difference between this example and programming is that people generally understand programming even less, and so miss the point even more thoroughly.
The main point of software-as-art should be the sophistication and elegance of the code, not just the attractiveness of the user-interface. I can design you a beautiful GUI, but if it runs only slowly on a top-end PIII, the operating system as a whole would hardly be considered a work of art, would it?
The problem is that, whilst an individual piece of code may be beautiful, the entire program may not. Someone who understands programming can (to a certain extent) separate the different (and sometimes hidden) aspects of the program and appreciate them individually. Someone who cannot program can merely look at a program in its entirety, and make a shallow judgement based on what they can see.
>Admiration from your peers is always more >desireable, but to disregard every one else's is >quite arrogant. Don't you think?
Not at all. One should always listen to anyone's opinion on anything they are *qualified* *to* *talk* *about*. My girlfriend, for instance, knows what constitutes a nice-looking UI, but I'd never ask her opinion on how to actually go about implementing it.
You can't just write off sexual imagery as "part of their culture". Sexual imagery is part of *every* culture, whether it is "allowed" or not. Here, it is allowed in both japanese and western culture, so this point is doubly irrelevent.
In fact, the only difference (vis-a-vis explicit imagery) between japanese and western culture is that japanese culture places more emphasis on personal responsibility and maturity.
Contrast this with western culture's insistance that "nothing is ever your fault" and that "you can always blame somebody else", and it's not surprising that people blame more problems on porn/violence/whatever, whether it is justified or not.
It *is* possible that children in the west *are* more affected by explicit images, but (if they are, a point still undecided) surely a better solution is to arrest this cultural slide into immaturity than to (yet again) just fix the symptoms.
If a situation like this arises (external "threat" versus parental responsibility), the automatic outcome is removal of the threat, *not* tightening of parental control. Basically, inattentive parents hand-off control to the authorities, simply because it's easier than they themselves doing anything about it. The answer is not to mask the symptoms - the answer is to go for the source of the problem.
>Which brings us back to the ORIGINAL issue or >whether children should have access to material >that their parents do not wish them to.
Actually, I think you'll find the original issue was (at least in part) whether children should be banned from films that they are "too young" for, even if their parents agree their entry. Certainly it is justified to keep toddlers out of porn theaters, but to deny a 17-year-old access to a film on an adult theme, *even* *with* the permission of their parents to view it? Hmmm.
Frankly, it has always amazed me that people (in many areas) can get married and (legally) have kids themselves at 16, but aren't allowed to watch it on-screen for another two years. Which is more important to the previous poster, stopping adolescents *watching* sexual acts, or stopping them from *doing* them? Right, that's the age of consent raised to 18, then. Where do you stop?
>You grant access to porn for your children.
That's not exactly the same as allowing them to watch films containing adult material. Porn is just one end of a huge spectrum. The argument should be where do you draw the line on that spectrum, not "do you let them access any part of it at all?".
>Your children are not yet adults. You do not >know the effect your parenting will have on >them.
No, but assuming you don't totally repress all forms of self-expression, you can generally guess. I have several friends whose parents were more open about sex, and they have without exception failed to turn into psychopaths or perverts. On the other hand, some of the most promiscuous people I know have either very strict parents, or were educated in "repressed" environments (eg, convent school).
You can argue it's down to the individual child, but then that invalidates your own argument - is it right to damage a child's development by stifling their education in this way, simply to avoid damaging another child who hasn't been brought up to be as "stable"?
Or, in fact, is the answer not to leave the decision to the one group who is most qualified to decide on a child-by-child basis - their parents?
>So the theatres have instituted a requirement >that the parents be present during the movie. >Simple. The parent's rights are not abridged. >The children are supervised.
What does this solution have over merely requiring the parents to *buy* the ticket for the child? Or to provide authorisation for the child to buy it themselves?
In addition, requiring the parent to sit-in with the child *does* inconvenience them - they have to sit through a two-hour-plus film which (in all likelihood) they may not wish to see.
Besides, exactly *how* are the parents supervising the child? Why does this argument not work for censoring the internet, or for television? Any good parent should know what their child watches or views, but this is considered inadequate for most other media, so why is it adequate here? If parents (apparantly) can't be trusted to even switch off a television, why should we trust them to go to all the bother of frog-marching their child out of a cinema?
>Now, if you DO support children's access to >pornography without parental oversight, then >you DO support pedophilia [sic]. Learn more >about the crime and how it is perpetrated and >you'll understand why I say that.
Not at all, the poster may have been merely advocating parents' personal choice in the matter, instead of being dictated to by the theater company. In addition, when was the last time you heard of a paedophile being convicted of showing porn to a minor? It's almost impossible to prove, and so they're usually charged with actual assult (rape, indecent assult, etc) or let go.
Besides, what makes you such an expert on paedophilia? Why do your opinions on the subject count for more than the previous poster's? Paedophiles often use sweets, or stories of lost pets to lure children into cars - does this mean we should ban bubble-gum or kittens? I think not.
Just some thoughts, in my first posting. Why does the phrase "baptism of fire" keep running through my mind?
Slashdot Mirror
Nah mate - surely it'd just be easier to infect the royal family. There's less of them for a start, and what with all the in-breeding, they'd never notice *another* little passenger. Of course, that's assuming it can *survive* in an environment already so thuroughly colonised by gout, anaemia and syphillis.
;-p
Disclaimer: I am British, so I can say whatever the hell I like about the royals
Oh great, encrypted sperm - does this mean we'll now all need a munitions licence to carry gonads across national borders?
Gives a whole new meaning to "playing with your weapon"...
On Tue Jan 9 23:13:29, Tritium wrote:
> This is part of one of Kamen's patents, and may be IT.
I think you're right. I think IT is a new type of "scooter", that uses dynamic-balancing tecnology that Kamen developed in the iBot. The iBot could balance fairly stably on only two wheels, even with a full load - you could push it or pull it, and it would compensate to remain balanced.
I think IT is a scooter that uses a similar system, but extended to allow it to do the same while moving. Leaning forwards would force the scooter to shuffle forwards to maintain equilibrium, but since you're standing on it it'll keep moving forwards. The further you lean forwards, the faster it'll go. Straighten up and it'll stop. Lean backwards and it'll move backwards. Since it only balances on two wheels, it would indeed look amusing - people would find it hard to believe that it wouldn't fall over, or at least be incredibly unstable. I don't know what the other two wheels (on each side) are for (in the image Tritium pointd to), but I'd guess they provide a way to smoothly scale even large obstructions, such as kerbs or flights of steps.
It would need some form of motive power, and I'd guess at an electric motor.
Reading the patent description whose number is on Tritium's image backs this up:
It fits all the clues:
- not a medical invention
- possible quick assembly from constituent modules, using only scredriver and hex wrench
- disassembled, fits in a large duffel-bag
- fun element - something which looks so absurdly unstable would make me laugh, especially when I realised it worked. I laughed when I first saw the iBot standing up, too.
- Less than $2,000 - should be relatively cheap to mass-produce.
- Two models - makes sense. You even get different models of those damn push-scooters now...
- "a product so revolutionary, you'll have no problem selling it". Who hasn't wanted a skateboard/scooter/rollerblades that could climb stairs? Or not tip you over when you hit a crack in the pavement? Or safely navigate cobbles? I know I have, a thousand times.
- "The question is, are people going to be allowed to use it?". Having people zipping around on pedestrian walkways on motorised scooters will give safety groups the jitters. OTOH, it looks too small and flimsy to compete with cars on the road.
- "If enough people see the machine you won't have to convince them to architect cities around it. It'll just happen". It's a city-planner's dream - electrically-powered, no pollution, quiet, clean, fast, safe (if you're going to crash, just jump off), you name it. It dumps all over cycle-paths. Perhaps "Ginger-paths" next?
- "will sweep over the world and change lives, cities, and ways of thinking". Hyperbole, sure, but it could replace bikes/skateboards/rollerblades entirely, and have a good crack at cars for short in-town journeys.
- "The core technology and its implementations will... have a big, broad impact not only on social institutions but some billion-dollar old-line companies". Yah, like petrol companies, car companies, oil companies. Cheap, efficient electrically-powered, safe mass-transit devices? The petrol/car co's must be having a coronary at the mere thought.
- "will profoundly affect our environment and the way people live worldwide". See points about cheap, clean transport, earlier.
- "It will be an alternative to products that are dirty, expensive, sometimes dangerous and often frustrating, especially for people in the cities". IE, cars, bikes, the tube, buses, trains.
- "IT will be a mass-market consumer product". At under $2,000, I'd want one.
- "likely to run afoul of existing regulations and or inspire new ones... will also likely require meeting with city planners, regulators, legislators, large commercial companies and university presidents about how cities, companies and campuses can be retro-fitted for Ginger". See point earlier about how it couldn't safely mix with pedestrians or cars, but would probably need a cycle-path-type idea.
If there's anything I've missed, please let me know. This sounds about the coolest hting I've heard of in years, and I'm dying for 2002 to come around so I can find out if I was right or notAny thoughts?
Indeed - what stops Yahoo using SSL on the initial connection between them and the sender?
I'm no crypto or security expert, but it seems like a glaring hole that could be easily fixed. Any technical reasons why they can't?
I doubt they're worried about "locking out" people who don't have SSL-capable browsers, since they're quite happy to let half of the Yahoo forums (fora?) and things use cookies, and several browsers (eg, IE for the Mac) *still* don't support them...
Yes, yes, I know it's a troll, but I still had to respond.
Firstly, I like the idea of MS and IBM products shipping on time. Wish I could see his calendar. Be quite a sight, a calendar like that
Secondly, I (and most of the people I've spoken to) actually write slightly better code when I'm tipsy or slightly stoned. Dunno why, but maybe it has something to do with (hnnnngh) Thinking Out Of The Box. Try it some time - you might be surprised.
I've read most of the other posts, and I can't help feeling we're all missing the point here. Sure, Techies don't understand Law. Sure, Lawyers may even understand tech better than we understand Law...
However, never once have I ever heard of techies being involved in deciding what lawmakers can and cannot do (at least, to the extent that lawmakers are with tech). Techies may not understand law, but we employ Lawyers and Judges to do that for us. However, if Lawmakers are supposed to pass laws about technology, effectively telling techies what they can and can't do, don't they then have an obligation to understand the technology they're legislating about?
The way I see it, it should not be permissable to pass laws in an area unless you are sufficiently competent in the area to know what you're talking about.
Just my £0.02
>Why can art only be appreciated or even
:-).
>recognized by the initiated?
You get more out of any artistic experience, the more you know about it, but some types of art are easier to appreciate (in ignorance) than others.
Architecture and painting (for example) are easy to appreciate, even for those who's never picked up a paintbrush (or CAD application) in their lives. However equally, no-one would expect someone to find a mathematical proof beautiful (closely related to "art") without a thorough grounding in maths (and often, not even then
>It is possible that I don't understand the
>brilliance behind a working application but I can
>still percieve it as a fine piece of work.
Of course, but to do so based upon looks is only one aspect of the artistry. If you go solely by looks, Windows would be considered by many to be far more artistic than Linux/Unix (notice, please, that I make no such claim myself - I only indicate that many people may think so).
It is entirely possible to consider works of Mozart (for example) to be great solely because they look visually beautiful when written down on the stave, but to do so misses the entire point of the art itself. If someone says that Mozart was a genius because he wrote neatly, everyone realises that they are completely missing the point - why should software be any different? In fact, the only difference between this example and programming is that people generally understand programming even less, and so miss the point even more thoroughly.
The main point of software-as-art should be the sophistication and elegance of the code, not just the attractiveness of the user-interface. I can design you a beautiful GUI, but if it runs only slowly on a top-end PIII, the operating system as a whole would hardly be considered a work of art, would it?
The problem is that, whilst an individual piece of code may be beautiful, the entire program may not. Someone who understands programming can (to a certain extent) separate the different (and sometimes hidden) aspects of the program and appreciate them individually. Someone who cannot program can merely look at a program in its entirety, and make a shallow judgement based on what they can see.
>Admiration from your peers is always more
>desireable, but to disregard every one else's is
>quite arrogant. Don't you think?
Not at all. One should always listen to anyone's opinion on anything they are *qualified* *to* *talk* *about*. My girlfriend, for instance, knows what constitutes a nice-looking UI, but I'd never ask her opinion on how to actually go about implementing it.
Just some thoughts,
You can't just write off sexual imagery as "part of their culture". Sexual imagery is part of *every* culture, whether it is "allowed" or not. Here, it is allowed in both japanese and western culture, so this point is doubly irrelevent.
In fact, the only difference (vis-a-vis explicit imagery) between japanese and western culture is that japanese culture places more emphasis on personal responsibility and maturity.
Contrast this with western culture's insistance that "nothing is ever your fault" and that "you can always blame somebody else", and it's not surprising that people blame more problems on porn/violence/whatever, whether it is justified or not.
It *is* possible that children in the west *are* more affected by explicit images, but (if they are, a point still undecided) surely a better solution is to arrest this cultural slide into immaturity than to (yet again) just fix the symptoms.
If a situation like this arises (external "threat" versus parental responsibility), the automatic outcome is removal of the threat, *not* tightening of parental control. Basically, inattentive parents hand-off control to the authorities, simply because it's easier than they themselves doing anything about it. The answer is not to mask the symptoms - the answer is to go for the source of the problem.
No-one cures measles by painting over the spots.
TTFN,
>Which brings us back to the ORIGINAL issue or
>whether children should have access to material
>that their parents do not wish them to.
Actually, I think you'll find the original issue was (at least in part) whether children should be banned from films that they are "too young" for, even if their parents agree their entry. Certainly it is justified to keep toddlers out of porn theaters, but to deny a 17-year-old access to a film on an adult theme, *even* *with* the permission of their parents to view it? Hmmm.
Frankly, it has always amazed me that people (in many areas) can get married and (legally) have kids themselves at 16, but aren't allowed to watch it on-screen for another two years. Which is more important to the previous poster, stopping adolescents *watching* sexual acts, or stopping them from *doing* them? Right, that's the age of consent raised to 18, then. Where do you stop?
>You grant access to porn for your children.
That's not exactly the same as allowing them to watch films containing adult material. Porn is just one end of a huge spectrum. The argument should be where do you draw the line on that spectrum, not "do you let them access any part of it at all?".
>Your children are not yet adults. You do not
>know the effect your parenting will have on
>them.
No, but assuming you don't totally repress all forms of self-expression, you can generally guess. I have several friends whose parents were more open about sex, and they have without exception failed to turn into psychopaths or perverts. On the other hand, some of the most promiscuous people I know have either very strict parents, or were educated in "repressed" environments (eg, convent school).
You can argue it's down to the individual child, but then that invalidates your own argument - is it right to damage a child's development by stifling their education in this way, simply to avoid damaging another child who hasn't been brought up to be as "stable"?
Or, in fact, is the answer not to leave the decision to the one group who is most qualified to decide on a child-by-child basis - their parents?
>So the theatres have instituted a requirement
>that the parents be present during the movie.
>Simple. The parent's rights are not abridged.
>The children are supervised.
What does this solution have over merely requiring the parents to *buy* the ticket for the child? Or to provide authorisation for the child to buy it themselves?
In addition, requiring the parent to sit-in with the child *does* inconvenience them - they have to sit through a two-hour-plus film which (in all likelihood) they may not wish to see.
Besides, exactly *how* are the parents supervising the child? Why does this argument not work for censoring the internet, or for television? Any good parent should know what their child watches or views, but this is considered inadequate for most other media, so why is it adequate here? If parents (apparantly) can't be trusted to even switch off a television, why should we trust them to go to all the bother of frog-marching their child out of a cinema?
>Now, if you DO support children's access to
>pornography without parental oversight, then
>you DO support pedophilia [sic]. Learn more
>about the crime and how it is perpetrated and
>you'll understand why I say that.
Not at all, the poster may have been merely advocating parents' personal choice in the matter, instead of being dictated to by the theater company. In addition, when was the last time you heard of a paedophile being convicted of showing porn to a minor? It's almost impossible to prove, and so they're usually charged with actual assult (rape, indecent assult, etc) or let go.
Besides, what makes you such an expert on paedophilia? Why do your opinions on the subject count for more than the previous poster's? Paedophiles often use sweets, or stories of lost pets to lure children into cars - does this mean we should ban bubble-gum or kittens? I think not.
Just some thoughts, in my first posting. Why does the phrase "baptism of fire" keep running through my mind?
TTFN,