yeah, and a neural net can be programmed to handle the different gaits and learn to optimize while in the appropriate gait mode. I understand this would come at a cost (more computation and memory) but in today's world memory is so cheap and small. In that case you wouldn't have a 'damaged' gait, if damaged, upon usage of a gait the learning algorithm would adapt to each environment if necessary...

Think of the uphill gait while damaged...in your scenario you'd pick either 'uphill' or 'damaged'....but with the neural net it would adapt the uphill to perform best while damaged.

Having taken an AI class in College, I'm wondering if this might be a real-world scenario where a self-learning neural net would come in handy....not only for the broken leg scenario, but because you can tell it to learn, the "Gait" can be optimized at run-time under any scenario.

Now police can use the device to charge you with PCS (possession of a controlled substance) for detecting minute traces of a substance. Just what we needed.

that we can't speak proper Chinese.

Yeah, and many in the hard right will oppose it too because it's "playing god". What's your point? The reason liberals tend to oppose GM tends to be more along the lines of Monsanto screwing things up by:

1) Patenting a seed, and then patent trolling people who's fields were pollinated by their patented seed.
2) Adding in a resistance gene to a plant that didn't have it, using harsh chemicals to kill pests, where the plant soaks up the chemical and is then eaten by people.
3) Causing drug resistance (Roundup) to spread to plants that weren't meant to have it (by lack of proper testing), thereby causing destruction to farms where there are hardly any alternatives to nuking the field to destroy the weeds that are now resistant.
4) Where the use of the "Scientific Method" and independant testing is ignored in the name of profit.


Need I say more?

Just like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc, etc. Nobody wants to fess up, but some appear to be "trying" to step up to the NSA now.

I wonder if they (private companies) secretly allowed it(NSA infiltration) to happen under fear of the NSA using whatever power they have to get the companies shut down if they didn't follow suit. Now that the public has been informed, the companies are using all the plausible deniability they can to prevent lawsuits. In the case of the UPS, I don't think there's any plausible deniability to use...It's not a software system that the NSA could exploit per-se.

Or is it the case these companies really are just as corrupt as the NSA?

I really don't see any other alternative, unless you want to argue that Snowdens docs were fake (Highly unlikely).

nope....not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about how you can use less energy to power certain devices.

Take a traditional light bulb for example. 120V @0.5A using 60 watts. So in 1 hour you use .06kWh, and typical efficiency for a bulb is 15 lm/w so you get about 900 lumens from 60 watts. Because the standard connection runs at 60hz it just so happens that the 60 watt bulb typically means it uses 60 J/s.

Now lets take the resonant frequency of Tungsten (4.161mhz)....If we can pulse at this freqency, we can put less into the system and get the same observable output (lumens). Since the frequency will be increased by 69.35 the VoltAmps will need to decrease by the same factor to use the same power. So say 4.3V @ 200mA is a good approximation. Now because 4.161mhz is the resonant frequency the efficiency of the transfer of electricity to lumens has increased, we can likely decrease the voltage and/or current quite a bit.

So lets say that now the efficiency of the light bulb goes up to 30lm/w at the resonant frequency...

we would now be able to use the formula (V*A * 69.35 = W -> W*30 = lm). This would give you 1739 lm at that 4.3V@200mA, so you'd need to decrease significantly. Lets take 2V @ 200mA, you'd get 27.74W @ 4.161mhz frequency, that gives you a lumen output of 832lm.

Now you're using only 27.74 Watts per hour to provide approximately the same amount of light. Of course in the real world the numbers are a bit different, but that's how it can be calculated.

I was in a bit of a hurry to finish up, sorry for the sloppy math.

Sorry, to clarify what I mean is oscillating at the resonant frequency of the device.

What electronics manufacturers really need to focus on is boosting energy efficiency by using harmonics. Using 60hz for nearly everything is very inefficient. There are various YT videos showing efficiency gains (although some like to call it over-unity/free energy when it's not) by matching the input frequency to the harmonics of the devices (light bulbs for example).

It's more logical that the theory that the planes took the towers down all by them selves...and that fires alone took down building 5.

Don't forget the packs of rabid dogs....I can imagine seeking them out to study while brainstorming the next #1 best selling zombie game.

That's a great quote btw. I was going to suggest a similar issue with the so-called sea level rise from melting ice (if the ice is floating and melts then it doesn't raise the level since ice has more spacial volume than water per)...however there is also suggestion (from the global warming/science community) that some of the ice melt from Antarctica is from ice that is over land and not currently floating or below the sea level, which would, all other variables excluded, raise the sea level.

Not trolling....My logic is that if the continent rises, then the volume of water it displaces would in-effect decrease, thereby countering the effect of the water rise. The real idea i was putting forth was that they could measure the volume displacement countered to see what the offset really is. 15mm/yr rise doesn't sound significant, but if you consider the area affected, 15mm could make a huge difference in offsetting the purported rise in sea level.

http://www.science20.com/news_... Apparently the loss of ice in the Antarctic is raising the continent as well. If this is true, how much will the levels really rise as the ice melts? Scientists, I believe are a bit too quick to assume melting ice caps are going to flood several parts of the earth, and likely being pushed to by the global warming crowd to push their BS agendas.

....To keep the CIA out