On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:41:35 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: >Hmm, what fraction of verbal converations between people utilize webcams >now? We do have the cheap bandwidth needed to make that possible.
I don't know what the fraction is but that is irrelevant. It is used by people who need it or wish to use it. You can buy a web cam and software for very low cost. If the fraction of actual users (who have highspeed internet) is small, while being so affordable, it indicates that people don't see a huge need for this technology. I personally wont have one because I feel it is an invasion of privacy and frankly, I am a bit camera shy. In the context of your original statement, this does not invalidate the technology, only the market which the technology needs. >Simply because people criticized valid ideas, doesn't make ideas that are >criticized right. And that statement can be easily flipped on its head. Simply because people criticize invalid ideas, doesn't make ideas that are criticized wrong. Your argument seems to be that most new ideas are invalid. This may be the case, however they do serve the purpose of eliminating possibilities which aids the progression of technological development. Like Thomas Edison said, "Results? Why, man, I have gotten lots of results! If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed.". >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. I have never considered you a luddite. But I do believe you think of new tech in terms of your business and are a little jaded from past promises. You don't have the time or money to follow a path that may not pay off. I too am self employed and am unable to pursue the work I am really interested in for need of generating a certain number of billable hours every month. I wouldn't invest in something based on a sole press release either. Announcements such as the Spectrolab/NREL one, while their immediate impact is not quantified, do indicate a progression in technology. This is what I find interesting and encouraging. >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. All good criteria. What I don't understand is how you have applied them to a PV cell and a Segway. The former is a modification of an already proven technology. The later, a unique idea, which has only been on the market for a few months, and was made possible by recent developments in embedded real time control. >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? It appears to me that you consider the technology invalid today, because the futurists failed to produce them 30 years ago. >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, I believe the speed is controllable. >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 It appears to me to have more control and maneuverability than any other form of powered transportation. >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, The subject header of this thread suggests it is desirable to someone. >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. It allows it to turn, literally, on a dime. No vehicle with more than one axle can do that smoothly. >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. We live with bicycles, skateboards, bladers, and personal mobility devices that do this already. >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. Or Both. Dean _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
