----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 9:48 AM Subject: Re: SCOUTED: Segway scooter hot seller online
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:25:30 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > >>So I see in the Segway and (hopefully) its descendants a means to move > >>towards a smaller, more efficient means of transportation. > > > >How is it more efficient for commuting than other forms of single person > >transportation that use very little fuel, such as scooters? > > It may not be. But I think Doug's point was that it gives an option to people > who either can't or won't drive a scooter for commuting. There are environments > were the Segway will do well. And personal preference will have a lot to do > with it. Although right now, that choice isn't there for many people because of > the cost. > > I would like to suggest to all of you who, it appears, have already been run > over by one of these, that whether skateboard, bicycle, blades or segway, the > problem does not lie with the mode, but with the asshole who is piloting it. > > >>Obviously the scope if this first iteration is limited, but its a start, > >>a new idea, and I hope it's successful. > > >Well, the TV phone was a new idea too. We were all supposed to have TV > >phones by now; the first prototypes were available over 40 years ago. Most > >new well hyped technology doesn't live up to their promise. It is possible > >to criticize individual efforts without being a luddite. > > But it wasn't a good idea. People just thought it was neat, not useful. My memory of that era is different from yours. Futurists argued that they were just around the corner. When I was young, I certainly expected them to be the norm by now. My understanding at the time was that most people did. > Like automatic doors and food pills. Expense and lack of bandwidth made it > impractical for all but the wealthy. Cheap bandwidth is here now and webcams > are becoming quite cheap and popular for those who wish to use them. Hmm, what fraction of verbal converations between people utilize webcams now? We do have the cheap bandwidth needed to make that possible. >CD's, cell phones, ABM's, debit cards, PC's, microwave ovens, telephones, electricity etc. > were all new ideas that at one time had their critics. "They said Einstein was crazy, they said Newton was crazy, they said Ernie Schwartz was crazy." "Who's Ernie Schwartz?" "He's a guy down the block who thinks he is Napoleon. Now, he's really crazy." Simply because people criticized valid ideas, doesn't make ideas that are criticized right. > How did you ever become a science fiction fan? :-) I always enjoyed science fiction and fantasy. Liking fantasy doesn't mean I believe that people can actually practice magic; I can suspend disbelief to enjoy fiction. My dissertation was in experimental high energy physics. My work has been is in cutting edge technology for most of the last 20 years. I am not opposed to innovation, goodness, I make my living off of it. As I mentioned before, buddies of mine have come up with innovations that save the world economy tens of billions of dollars every year. My own modest contributions are the standard techniques used by all companies for work that grosses over 100 million per year. I'm now working with a team that might be able to revolutionize how another energy industry works, saving both lives and money. So, I certainly do not consider myself a luddite. But, I've listened to hype for over 30 years now, and have developed an ear for separating real innovation from song and dance innovation. My ear is certainly not perfect, but I've had a better track record than others. One of the things I look for is meat. When I come up with what I consider an innovation, once the patents are applied for of course, I am more than happy to give detailed arguments that back up my claims. Another is the answer to the question "the guys before you were bright, why didn't they think of this?" Now, this can be considered a negative question, like the questioning of Galileo's right to counter Aristotle. But, Galileo had a good answer, "detailed observations are useful because things don't always work as we expect them to. Aristotle was very bright, but his unwillingness to dirty his hands with experimental work was a negative." I ask myself this question when I come up with an idea. If I cannot think of why bright people didn't come up with this idea beforehand, I look very carefully for what I overlooked. Most of the time, I find my own mistake. When I do have good reasons for me being the first person to come up with an idea, then I go forward, with a much better chance of success. Remember, most new ideas are wrong. Indeed, Shelly Glashow, the Nobel Prize winner, talks about the small fraction of his new ideas that prove at all useful. He uses a system of multiple critics to help him winnow the wheat from the chaff. In the environment in which I was trained, trying to tear apart a colleague's new idea was considered a favor. Earlier, I gave rules of thumb for skepticism about new technology. One of which was years and years of it just being around the corner; its in development, etc. I remember, and should probably dig up, very optimistic articles written in SA about solar and controlled fusion power back from the early '80s. Given that, why shouldn't I take the present unsubstantiated claims with a grain of salt. When solar power cells drop in price a factor of 2 per kwH, then I'll start to take notice. When they are, once again, just about to, then I don't. Why would you consider this type of skepticism unwarranted? Getting back to the Segway, I consider a transportation technology that runs on the sidewalk at a speed that requires pedestrians to jump out of the way, and who's innovation is not that it provides transportation, not that it does it in an energy efficient manner, but that it does it with a certain type of balance and control at a high price to be more flash than substance. IMHO, a defense of this technology needs to show not only that small energy efficient transportation is desirable, but that 1) The unique features of the Segway provide unique and critical advantages for using such technology. IIRC, the use of gyroscopes for stability is what is unique about the Segway. 2) The difficulties inherent in running at almost 20 feet per second on a pedestrian right of way can be overcome in a straightforward manner. I did not see point 1 addressed to any great degree With respect to point 2, from riding a bike on a bike/hike path and riding a bike on the shoulder street, I know that, with any real pedestrian traffic at all, bike path travel is either a) close to walking speed or b) intrusive. So, well mannered Segway riders will either go on low traffic sidewalks or go much slower than 12 mph. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
