Get Buff While Geeking Out 241
Two different devices intended to slow the nerd obesity epidemic just came to our attention. PoconoPCDoctor writes about the Geek-A-Cycle, which is a workstation with built-on exercise bike that you have to pedal to run the computer. And several readers pointed out the FP Gamerunner (mirror), reviewed here: think treadmill meets Quake 4. Again, you have to keep moving to stay in the game.
have to pedal to run the computer? no. (Score:5, Informative)
The Hacker's Diet (Score:4, Informative)
Tested this at IHRSA (Score:3, Informative)
Stand Still - Powergrid (Score:2, Informative)
Re:1.21 gigawatts (Score:2, Informative)
I don't believe that the device in the article is actually powering the computer by itself. But, assuming for the moment that is was, then what kind of computer could an overweight middle aged guy like me peddle power for an hour or more? Laptop computers usually tend to be more energy efficient than most desktop computers. I should not plan on trying to peddle power a Pentium 4 with a top-of-the-line power hungry video card and an inefficent power supply hooked to a multiple 19 inch CRT monitors. Yes, can't you just see me trying to do that for hours at a time?
My AMD Athlon 64 desktop computer uses a quiet fanless cheap video card. The power supply is 85% efficient which is unusually good. It is plugged into a watt meter which shows that most of the time it uses about 95 Watts (not including the monitor) but it briefly uses much more under heavy load. That does not include the monitor. Some LED monitors only use about 50 Watts or so but the CRT monitors use about twice as much power. The energy efficient Athlon 64 EE Processor uses much less power than the processor which that I have. If I am not mistaken, I belive Intel's new "Core 2 Duo" processer is fairly efficient, but I don't know the exact number.
Perhaps an overweight middle age person like me could handle something like the NorhTec Panda PC [norhtec.com] which only draws about 21 Watts. That plus the LCD montor which would probably draw an additional 50 Watts or so. Maybe I could use a KVM switch to easily switch my monitor, keyboard and mouse back and forth between something like that being run by peddle power and my other computer being run from the local power compay. That is of course assuming that the peddling device was actually hooked to an alternator or generator plus an inverter and was actually powering the computer.
Re:1.21 gigawatts (Score:2, Informative)
Ooops, I ment to say LCD monitors not LED monitors. Keep in mind that I am not a tech or an expert on the different types of monitors.
I recently read a review of a computer that uses the EE (energy efficient) versions of the AMD Athlon 64 X2 [tomshardware.com] processor which only used 54 Watts. Another alternative for someone doesn't need to run Windows XP or Windows Vista might be the NorhTec MicroClient Jr. [linuxdevices.com]which is a tiny PC that draws 8 Watts and is capable of running Puppy Linux. Puppy Linux is an extra-light weight stripped down version of Linux which has less impressive graphics than most other Linux distros. You could browse the Internet, send email and do word processing with it. I have never actually tried one of their computers. Perhaps it could be hooked to a small efficient LCD monitor (or whatever is most efficient). Just using a laptop would probably be an even simpler solution. A person could charge the laptop's battery for a few minutes ahead of using it.
The Watt-meter that I used on my computer was the $39.99 Kill-A-Watt [the-gadgeteer.com] meter.
In the article I just noticed that the photo shows a woman dressed up in nice clothes leisurely peddling in front of an inefficient CRT monitor. She isn't even sweating but then, apparently she isn't really powering the computer.
Citations? Re:The economy under Bush is just fine. (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not trying to troll you here -- I'd love to see some citations for the fact's you're presenting, such as who's paying the taxes, how much wealth the top 1% are absorbing, etc...
"we are at 4.6% unemployment" ... "5.7 million new jobs have been created since 2003."
The CIA World Factbook entry on the U.S. (updated October 5th) states 5.1% (2005 est) unemployment index (okay, not a big difference, but still, when dealing with such small percentages, that's still a 10% difference), with 12% below poverty (not exactly great there, for such an economic powerhouse). And, keep in mind, the revised U.I. is not a true reflection of unemployment rates, it's based only on "new unemployment claims". In a nut-shell, it's not a terribly accurate measure of economic health in and of itself. If a person loses their $60,000.00/year job and starts working part-time at McD's to try to bring in some money, they don't even get counted as a new unemployment claim because, well, they're working!
Meanwhile, public debt is 68% of the GDP (the GDP, by the way, is $12,000,000,000,000.00, so apparently the debt-load is > eight trillion dollars).
In the two year period of 2004-2005 three million jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector alone. How you spin the data you selectively present makes a difference... While I'm certain that there are many benefiting in the GWB economy, there are many suffering as well.
(This is where you're supposed to respond and say something about poor people being that way by choice, that if they'd only work a little harder then they too could become rich and successful, and avoid a situation where the military seems like the only viable option).
Inflation is miniscule.
Quote from outside source: "The inflation outlook remains highly uncertain, and until we actually see inflation begin to slow down, I will be focused on the upside risks in the outlook," Yellen said in a speech to the California Independent Bankers convention in Laguna Beach, California.
In the Carter days, minimum wage was far closer to a living wage than it is today. Executive compensation was also much closer to employee compensation -- granted, there may be a higher level of benefits for the peons these days, but in almost all corporations, the lower you are on the totem pole, the more you are paying out of your own pocket for "benefits" such as health care (seriously, the U.S. still lacks national health care?)
Now, I'm not saying the Dem's would make it any better, that's not for me to say, but it seems that the truthiness of you post is aimed at justifying a specific agenda. Frankly, I think the Dem's are the same as the GOP with one small difference -- they tend to lack backbones. Bottom-line, both the primary parties seem to be no more than corporate lapdogs in this day and age. You'll never see any radical changes in economic policy based on who wins or loses, perhaps only in "moral issues" legislation and warmongering.
Re:Tested this at IHRSA (Score:2, Informative)