But they run at twice or three times the speed and the force of impact is probably the same.

Or maybe it isn't. Anybody done calculations?

If joints don't wear out for the elite marathoners who run the most miles at the highest intensity, then it's more likely that joints don't wear out.

The biggest difference between an elite runner and an amateur runner is the number of miles run. If you are one of those people who believe that elite runners are super-human genetic freaks, then you can make all sorts of claims.

2m/s is 13.4 min/mile and 3m/s is 8.9 min/mile.

Definitely jogging pace but I think walking gait while jogging would probably count as heel striking and bad running/jogging form.

But racewalkers can do 6 min/mile walking.

Then there are long term issues like joint wear. I used to enjoy running but my knees wore out and knee replacement really doesn't fix that.

The whole joint wear thing is absolute bullshit.

There are former long distance runners who have run for decades at 120 miles per week and now even in their 60s and 70s, don't have joint wear. Plus, in their youth, they were running elite marathon pace, around 12 mph for marathons.

Why is it that joint wear only happens to the "exercise" runners?

I'll get sweaty or smelly, and that's just socially unacceptable.

You can run without getting sweaty if you keep your pace down to around 12 minutes or less. If it's summer, run with the shirt in your pocket and then when you reach your destination, dry off in the restroom and put the shirt on. It will be no worse than the smell from walking around.

The happiest and joyous moments of our lives are when we have spent large amounts of energy. The times when we did nothing and spent very little energy is not memorable or significant part of our lives.

Our bodies are designed to want to expend energy, efficiently expending energy helps. But, the whole point of being alive is to spend energy.

Isn't saying humans had to survive on limited resources for hundreds of thousands of years a wild guess? It could be very well that humans did pretty well hunting and gathering. There are many animals out there who don't have to survive on limited resources - like deer. They have all the food they want out there.

We've had nice paper thin displays for years now. But a thin display doesn't mean a thin tablet. Until we have thin CPUs and thin RAM sticks, and thin flash memory and thin connectors, we aren't going to have a paper thin tablet.

All that can be squeezed into a quarter sized "paper-clip" or a stiff spline.

When you get all the components you need for a tablet you end up with something just as thick as what we've got on shelves today. By no means thick, but not paper-thin.

And that is why the whole video is about the UI aspect of using paper thin tablets and not about the technology of paper thinness.

The topic should probably have been called new UI for using multiple tablets on a desk. Plus, new bending gestures when the display is thin.

the word "delay" means a quantity of time as large as forever

Or as little as a few days.

Anyone else read the arrogant comment attributed to some unnamed source at Intel, stating that Intel was frustrated with "everyone doing a half-assed Google TV so it's going to do it themselves and do it right." ?

Well the product isn't even out and you're foretelling failure?

And who in their right mind at Intel decided to blast the media with their arrogant claims before they actually secured the elusive content agreements? Are they this completely incompetent as to think that Internet TV has anything at all to do with their fabulous semiconductor technology, instead of realizing it has everything to do with negotiation and leverage?

Look at ITMS: an electronics/software company managed something similar to what you are saying cannot be done.

People are commenting that some people eat 500/1200/etc. calories and still not loosing weight. Can someone explain this to me? Your body needs a certain amount of calories for basic functions and this is around 2000 calories. How can you eat less than 2000 calories and not lose weight. A calorie is the amount of energy in the food that is measured through burning in a bomb calorimeter. Your body can't extract more calories from a 500 calorie Big Mac than 500 calories. If all you eat in one day is 500/1200 calories, where are the extra calories that are needed for basic body functions coming from? Are certain people more efficient at using calories than others? By a factor of 2, only needing 1000 calories? Or by a factor of 4, only needing 500 calories?

The reason is that the body needing 2000 calories is a very very rough approximation (very rough multiplicative factors to BMR and linear approximations from BMR data that is never shown to be linear). You can easily survive on 1000 calories a day if you don't exert yourself.

It is also believed that the body has a mechanism for decreasing calorie expenditure. Feeling sluggish and tired are probably symptoms of the body trying to minimize calorie expenditure.

So, assuming we need 2000 calories every day and that this value is not affected by any other factors is the error here.

What's terrible about getting rid of the other 50%?

Communism is "theoretically" the perfect government system but it doesn't work in practice. Getting rid of employment seems to work well in theory but would it work in practice? Would it result in massive famines, genocides stemming from massive gaps in wealth distribution that eliminating employment would cause?

We in the US and developed countries, have a stable thing working for us with the current world structure and it is natural to doubt what changes would bring. Only a tiny percentage of the world lives in wealth and comfort. We still have no idea on how to solve the problems of hunger and poverty of large populations of the world. Thinking eliminating employment would result in a positive outcome is optimistic, there are many many ways it could go horribly wrong.

I don't have an ad blocker. I use Request Policy to block external requests (and whitelist and temporary whitelist if I want external content in a web page). This blocks most ads by default, without any extra work on my part.

There will be new techniques to serve ads. AdBlock and your technique works because ads come from a different website than the one serving the content. Simply blocking those website like adBlock or by not allowing external requests to be loaded blocks ads. However, advertisers can easily ask the content provider to serve the ad and content together by first contacting the ad website at the server end.

Performance will be an issue for the heavier ads and they could do something like akamai for both content and ads. Both the content provider and ad server use the same set of hosts.

Of course, a new generation of tools would have to be built to counter something like this. But, that's another story.

Just because you can face your accuser in this case doesn't make what he's doing any WORSE than other surveilance. But people feel it is because they associate it with a person. Any strong power that can make use of this advantage will have a very strong position of power due to the information imbalance.

The output of surveillance cameras are vastly different than regular cameras. They provide an unappealing high-above kind of view. They are as exciting as watching the satellite views of cities, informative but ugly. Security guards will have to be trained to comprehend the output of these videos rather than these videos producing a vision of peeping tom's fantasy. I don't see surveillance video monitoring security guard more appealing a job than a plain old security guard job.

In the future, everyone will have wearable cameras and record everything. In Russia, dashcams are required by law and I'm sure it will be the same in the US as well in the future. Cyclists and runners are advised to have some sort of helmet or chest cam in case of accidents. Flash memory storage is getting cheaper and as low power video encoding boards come to market, it will be a part of our cellphone computing environment we carry around. In the future, it won't be just one person recording but everyone doing it.

You're also overestimating China's position. There are plenty of rare earth metals outside of China. It's actually to China's detriment that they're the chief supplier right now. As the supply of easily accessible minerals goes down, the value will go up -- the countries that wait the longest before ramping production will benefit the most. As for consumer electronics, what are they going to do? Stop making iPhones? If anything, that could be a short term boon to our economy, as we would suddenly have a motive to build a bunch of new factories and hire a bunch of workers. The increased cost of electronics would bug people for a while, but eventually they'd get used to it, and maybe even stop throwing away perfectly good phones every couple years. Meanwhile, what happens to China's economy when they cut out their largest trade partner?

They can use it give an advantage to their local industry. China is behind technologically and everyone is actively trying to make sure the Chinese don't get their hands on it. If China can give a slight advantage to their home industry and hope that the future leaders in electronics industry might be born from this. Even a tiny advantage might have a multiplier effect and take China to par with the rest of the world technologically.

As for paranoia, the US should be paranoid about Cisco stuff be made in China. It certainly gives me the willies.

Don't worry, the generation after you won't share the same sentiment. Each successive generation have seen larger and larger portions of the world as their "empathy circle". People identifying themselves by country is just a few generations old; before that people identified themselves more by the city or province they were from and before that a clan they belonged to. The future generations will see the a Chinese as just another person living their lives and trying to generally make things better. They certainly won't get willies imagining them as enemies fervently trying to take something away from you.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, Japan was the one copying, making knockouts and whatnot. But what happened is exactly what you described: they learned. And that is exactly what is happening to China right now.

Just because China and Japan share some similarities does not mean they will keep increasing their similarity. The world is at a different stage now than when Japan was starting out. Power was manufacturing then but now it's information and knowledge. It was about making stuff back then but now it's about creating stuff. The modern environment may not take China where Japan went.

On one side, when China is sufficiently ahead technologically, China may decide not to be the factory of the world and dedicate millions of people and billions of yuan to research into curing cancer, solving clean energy problems and so on and generally making the lives better instead chasing consumerism. The Chinese authorities have to make things better for the population every year for everyone to be quiet and maybe everyone will have quality of life above the west European countries eventually because of this.

Or they may the big Japan producing gizmos for the world, slowly producing mega-corporations.

Or they may crash and burn.

There is a lot of murmur that capitalism has served well in the manufacturing phase of our human history but might not be best suited for post-manufacturing economies. Sitting around waiting for someone somewhere to make some breakthrough and creating industries out of it might not be the best way forward. Maybe national and global push towards solving the world's problems might be the way instead of hoping the invisible hand fixes it. Maybe a system like China where large central decisions are made and pseudo-capitalism creates efficiencies in those central pushes is the best way forward, or maybe the old communist ugliness will rear it's ugly head and create massive inefficiencies. I guess we have to wait and see where the world is headed and in that frame where China will be.