People can 40 or 50mph on flat road? For what, 10 seconds? At any rate, this invention is pointless. I put my smartphone on a phone mount on the bike, crank up the audio and simply listen when it tells me to turn.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I do the same thing - when I buy a house, I never read the terms of the mortgage contract. I just sign on the "give me a house" line. So I'm not bound by the terms of the mortgage since I signed under a duress. It was just what I had to do to buy a house.
Yes, I too buy houses where the purchase contract requires no signature, but merely a mouse click. Or even better, where the contract is INSIDE the house and by the mere fact of removing the key from a sealed envelope and opening the door, I've accepted the mysterious contract that is inside that I did not sign...my opening the door is signature enough.
And if there is some clause in that contract that says the bank will install secret video cameras, too bad, take it up with the previous owner.
"Smoking is different, when used properly and as intended, your smoking harms the person next to you" - Not proven, if you want to take it on faith you can believe what you want but studies have failed to prove this conclusively
Maybe I haven't kept up with 2nd hand smoking studies, but what studies are you referring to? I thought studies had shown that it was harmful. The 1st 3 pages of google results so far show that 2nd hand smoke is still harmful, including some journals that were in the results.
Seriously, building a glass strong enough to withstand bird strikes is not a n issue and hasn't been.
The issue is that the glass has to be weak enough to allow the pilot to break through when he's ejecting. So strong enough for a bird at 800 mph, but weak enough for a human ejecting at maybe 10 mph.
What's funny is that you're trying to sound knowledgeable on the subject...but then make the completely ridiculous and wrong statement that pilots break through the canopy upon ejection. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Why is Bill Gates comparing himself to a corporation like Google? Of course a retired billionaire can be 100% charitable and provide free physical goods and services to poor countries. What the hell has Microsoft done for the poor?
While I appreciate what was said in the video, I can't imagine that I'd ever prefer leap motion, or even touch screens, over a mouse. It all boils down to the physical exertion of lifting my arm to perform input vs resting my arm on a desk and lightly moving my wrist. I can overcome intuitive input by learning to use a less intuitive system, but I will never overcome more physically exertive systems being more physically exertive.
I recall hearing that Chefs learn to manipulate a whisk with their wrist because the smaller muscles are less tiring in the long run, even though it's more natural to want to use your shoulder and arm to perform the action. This seems to be analogous to these new input styles.
I agree with you for desktop work. But other situations would benefit from Leap. If I'm in a kitchen, cooking, looking something up, like a recipe would be much easier using Leap. Or the usual living room, entertainment PC - I don't want to have to track down a mouse and find a surface to use it on. A few simple air-gestures to select a movie is all I need. Or conference presentations - gestures to highlight areas or move to the next slide. Etc, etc.
Couple this with google glass and you can use your gestures to integrate with the real world. Point to an object with a special gesture and it performs a search or takes a pictures of it or saves it as a GPS waypoint with a custom note.
The point is, you have to think beyond your current desktop limitations. Don't be that naysayer who has no imagination and shoots an idea down because it may not apply to your 1 use case.
Are we going to go after schoolchildren that trade desert cups at lunchtime because one has a higher value than another and can be called taxable income?
No, it can't be called taxable income, because no employment relationship exists between the two, and the two children are not eligible to pay income tax. So they're safe.
If I pay the check for a date does that mean she has to declare it on her taxes?
Depends, do you "date" whores? If you buy the meal for her as part of a business relationship, then it might be taxable income for her.
Let me extend your argument, now, so you can see how fucking foolish this line of questioning is:
Are we going to go after CEOs who opt to take their salary in the form of yachts and gulfstream jets, rather than cash?
Employment relationship? Are you fucking stupid? Since when is taxation based on employment only? The government wants to tax any and every transaction where net GAIN occurs. Win the lottery? Pay up. Found hidden treasure in the backyard, pay up. The school children example is absolutely relevant. If a child has a net gain by trading his dessert cup, that's GAIN and therefore technically taxable.
And since when do software engineers opt to take their salary in the form of food? Meals are a fringe benefit designed to keep employees happy. Will you tax free on site gym usage as well? How about fancy, office chairs? Or how about taxing free legal advice that some companies offer? How about taxing employee discounts on the products the company sells? Company holiday parties? Tax that bitch. You know what, you and IRS can go eat a bag of dicks. Stop taxing everything under the sun.
Or you for allowing your toddler to be able to pick up a loaded gun. When I take my small children to friend's houses that are not normally prepared for toddlers, I watch them like a hawk. I move knick-knacks and glasses that they can easily knock over and break. I move bowls of hard candy and TV remotes. If there was a gun on the coffee table, I sure as hell would move it too. I certainly don't let the wonder around by themselves and if they pick something up off the floor I grab them and find out what it is. Fishy stuff out of a toddler's mouth is sometimes gross, but not hard. It's called being responsible.
Fact: People without small children do not recognize the stupid things small children will do. It is the parent's responsibility to know what their child is capable of and react accordingly.
And if that loaded gun were the size of a BB? After you remove the TV remotes, hard candy, knick-knacks and glasses...everything visible, what about the things you can't see? Are you REALLY a parent? Because if you are, you'd know that unless you want to lose your mind, its not possible to watch everything your kid does 100% of the time. Every child has ingested something faster than you could reach in and fish out. Infants, even in their undeveloped state, KNOW when they are eating something they shouldn't - and when they see you racing over to fish it out, they've learned to swallow it faster than you can get there.
And if you do watch like a hawk 100% of the time, no more than 1 feet, away, you're lame helicopter parent.
I don't support a ban on buckyballs, but its bullshit to say its 100% the parent's responsibility alone.
They're not supposed to rule in favor of consumers. Or corporations. They're supposed to rule in "favor" of the law, regardless of which side is popular. The why of a ruling is more important, often, than which side wins and the "right" ruling can be made for the wrong reasons.
Yes, and that's why SCOTUS isn't full of conservative and liberal appointees and why you can't ever predict not only the final outcome, but the count of SCOTUS judges in favor or against certain cases because these judges don't vote along party lines. These are judges that vote in "favor of the law".
I was talking to a 15 year old kid, how his grades suffered because he decided he wasn't going to cheat anymore. He admitted he previously cheated freely and openly, without shame. Why? EVERYONE cheated, so there was no shame in it. But he realized that cheating was shortsighted and sooner or later, he would have to actually learn stuff. So he resolved to stop cheating, but at the cost of his previous good grades.
HE is an encouraging example. But the rest of his classmates aren't. Cheating is the norm and our future is screwed.
What alternative does the artist have in selling her music? It sucks making pennies, but would she be otherwise selling her music in concert, on CDs, etc.?
The alternative is to switch to a job that actually pays money. Frankly, she should quit her whining. A cellist? I'm sorry, but she's lucky to be making any money at all. I didn't even know you COULD make money as a cellist. Nobody is going to pay money to listen to a cellist at a concert, or buy her CD. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but in this world, you can't always do what your heart desires and also make a living wage off it. A few lucky ones do, but most of us make compromises in our career choice in order to pay the bills.
"Basically tanks can't see very well, can only shoot in one direction (and slowly) and are remarkably fragile other than frontal armor hits"
As a former Airborne Rifle Squad Leader in the 82nd, and former Bradley Master Gunner in the 1st CAV, I can assure you that this hasn't been the case in the last 30 or more years.
1. American tanks have an advantage in weapon range (commonly called standoff) over Infantry units. It's difficult to kill a tank if it can park and take potshots at you beyond your ability to effectively return fire.
2. They each have a TTS (tank thermal sight) that can display images based on a single degree of temperature difference, and combat as an infantrymen has a tendency to dramatically raise body temperature so that you literally glow in their sights.
3. The tank commander and gunner each have an independently operated sight, and the commander can shift and designate a new target while the gunner is still engaging the old target.
4. They can travel easily over moderate (not pristine) terrain at speeds greater than 45 MPH.
"Combined arms only works if... its combined... "
Yes. That also applies to the infantry.
So here's a thought. Go spend two or three hours walking around your local hardware store collecting the items you will need to kill (or at least render ineffective) an M1 Abrahms. Then figure out how you'll kill the other 100+ M1's that are right behind it.
Good luck, pal.
Nobody in their right mind would attack a tank head-on. The M1 has TERRIBLE fuel efficiency. It eats 1.7 gallons per mile, 10 gallons to start up and 10 gallons per hour idling. You attack the logistics of the tank - its supply convoys.
100 abrams? The US is a big country, with thousands of cities. We don't have enough M1s to put 100 M1s in every city and every point of conflict. On major battle fronts, sure. But we're not talking about a war between nations, we're talking about civil war. And you'd be naive to think that every tank platoon, with families and friends are going to all fight for the same side.
if you outlaw guns, crazy people will still find ways to kill other people, and in mass numbers.
That would explain the improvised bomb attacks that happen almost monthly in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany...
Don't forget Israel. No improvised bomb attacks there.
Violence is largely an socio-economic symptom. The more poor and oppressed a society, the more violence will occur. The US has far worse income inequality than the UK, Canada, Australia and Germany. The US has more violent EVERYTHING, not just guns, than those countries, because there is simply more poverty here.
All those COP reality shows don't happen in the Hamptons. They happen in Compton.