That's not his point either. His point is that he thinks we should stop researching walking robots because they wouldn't work for making cheap vacuum cleaners To support his point, he makes the unfounded argument that research into walking robots is holding back the rest of the robotics field.

My point is that he's a short-sighted fool who is ignoring the fact that vacuum cleaners are not the end-all-be-all of robotics, nor are wheels always the best method of locomotion. My suggestion that he lose a leg (or have both broken) so that he spends some time in a wheelchair was a way of pointing out one of the most desirable outcomes of the research on walking robots; replacement of missing and damaged legs for humans.

A bit extreme, perhaps, but consider the end result; the CEO who thinks that wheels are better than legs would suddenly have to contend with being in a wheelchair (at least for a while) and would get direct experience with just how limited wheels are and how versatile legs are in comparison.

So maybe instead of losing a leg, he just breaks them both and has to be in a wheelchair for a couple months.

One is being built in North Dakota right now. It should be in operation by the end of the year.

In other news, you and the person you responded to should take ten seconds to do a Google search before making fools of yourselves in public.

Tens of thousands of robots put together cars, furniture and other things every day. They don't have legs and most are bolted to a concrete floor and are little more than an arm.

The Roomba, Google's self-driving car, drones, spacecraft, the mars landers... we've made a shitload of robots that don't have legs. There's no shortage of non-legged robot research and production going on.

The CEO quoted in the article has a bug up his ass about one small area of R&D and is making idiotic excuses for why it should be eliminated. My hope is that gets in an accident and loses a leg. Maybe then he'll see the value in the R&D that's been done on robotic legs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

The free-to-play model originated in the late 1990s and early 2000s, coming from a series of highly successful MMOs targeted towards children and casual gamers, including Furcadia, Neopets, RuneScape, MapleStory, and text-based dungeons such as Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands.

But even that's wrong. MUDs date back to 1987.

Free to play games have been around for 27 years and they haven't destroyed the market for premium games. Valve letting game developers set their own prices is not going to suddenly make the people who have been willing to pay for premium games stop paying for them.

You're related to Miss South Carolina, aren't you.

Allowing the searching a house with the consent of one of the occupants" is not "betraying one's country." It's an interpretation of what constitutes unreasonable search and seizure.

The fact that you don't agree with that interpretation does not make it treason.

The fact that you think it does is what is making you look like a fool.

You should probably read the definition of treason before making a fool of yourself in public.

Too late now, of course, but maybe next time.

The argument that any new competitor in a market should immediately service all 300+ million people in the US or not be allowed to enter the market is the type of protectionist BS that's spouted by monopolies who want to protect the cash cows that they've been feeding off of. Shame on you for even trying it.

What Google is doing is adding competition to the markets they enter. Competition drives down prices. That's exactly the opposite of what Comcast is trying to accomplish with the Time Warner Cable merger, their multiple lawsuits against cities that decided to build out their own ISP network and astroturf stories like this one.

The only people harmed by Google's high speed access are the CEOs of companies that have sucked down billions in government money for providing high speed internet access while doing nothing to actually provide it.

The problem is that the above statement is a bare faced lie.

The TSA's method of preventing terrorism is to stop terrorists before they board a plane with a weapon. The terrorist's goal is to get weapons past the TSA checks and onto the plane.

The Richard Reid successfully carried bombs onto a plane in his shoes. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab successfully carried a bomb onto an airplane in his underwear. The TSA failed to stop them.

The fact that they were stopped by passengers afterwards does not change the fact that the TSA failed to stop terrorists.

And let's not forget the all the times that loaded guns, fake bombs that are supposed to be found and other contraband have been missed by the TSA.

Anyone who is arguing that the TSA is a success is either seriously deluded or lying.

Suffering a traumatic experience (as the mice in the experiment did) isn't a sin any more than having blue eyes or inheriting your parents' house when they die. The bible is very specific about what constitutes "sin" and nothing in this study is even remotely close.

You're taking a very specific statement in the bible and generalizing in a ridiculously broad way to make it fit the situation, then claiming that the bible predicted it. Sadly, this is a fairly typical for arguments that "the bible said it", even though it makes no sense.

The post you're responding to was said nothing about the Democratic party being better. The post refuted stenvar's statement that "Republicans oppose government programs" by pointing out things like the recent stories of Republican Senator Wicker forcing the completion of a project that no longer has any use.

Pointing out the support of pork barrel projects by Democrats would have done nothing to refute stenvar's statement, so all you've accomplished with your complaints is to make yourself look like a fool in public.

I, for one, can't wait until we have the actual possibility of 4chan being able to kill people via DDOS attacks on their phones when those people need to call 911.

Kids need to be exposed to a wide range of subjects (including programming) that they may later choose to pursue. They don't need to be taught to be experts in every subject, but they do need the basic understanding that will allow them to start learning on their own and to know whether it's something that would interest them or not. That basic understanding will help them make good choices about what classes they take, what they major in, etc.