The author is looking at the wrong historical records. Ages of ancient eunuchs might be hazy, but there was a time not so long ago where it was standard practice to castrate mental patients to make them easier to deal with these permanent residents of asylums. These records confirm the theory that castration is the easiest way to extend one's life for a variety of reasons.
I peed on an electric fence when I was a kid and got unpleasantly shocked, so it's definitely not impossible to get shocked, even if it is unlikely. I wasn't hurt, but I don't know whether it's risk free or not... I do know that you can do serious damage to yourself down there with a TENS-type device if you're not careful.
Also, as I understand the law, you can not set out "traps" for burglars or others that you find undesirable. If someone was hurt, surely this guy would be up on criminal charges, to say nothing of potential liability if the "victim" sues him.
His lack of foresight and dismal logic falls apart when you look at the long picture -- ie. significantly increased healthcare costs that are generated by smokers and drinkers in their old age.
I'm assuming that Russia has national healthcare... if not, then I suppose it makes a twisted sort of sense.
This is cool in an oldschool cyberpunk sort of way, but given that much defensive gear can get you arrested at a protest because it indicates you came there planning on violence (at least here in Toronto).
Helix, speaking from experience, no, not really...
The motion on the pedals of an airplane are a little odd, because you can both rotate the pedal and push it in, but it's all in the same direction... This system works by requiring you to push in a different direction.
Yeah, echoing everyone else, this really is a shockingly bad way to tackle the malaria problem. Our experiences with antibiotics should make it obvious that engineering resistant super-mosquitoes will just mean that fast acting strains of malaria evolve.
I hope there's more to the story, because this sure reflects badly on the scientists involved.
I think there's a math problem there? $150,000 cost, or 20 standard wheelchairs. I don't think a standard wheelchair costs $7,500.
I'm hoping that it's the first number that's wrong, because $150k is insanely high, and a deal breaker. The iBot wheelchair was a less than that (it was $26k) and the price was high enough to make the innovative product fail. I think if this product is to succeed they have to cut the cost to 1/10 of what's listed in the article, and I don't see any technical reason why they can't.
Wow, these are shockingly negative comments! That car looks like a ton of fun to drive, like a little go-kart. It's got enough room to do all the day-to-day things the average person needs, decent styling, and being so light it should have acceptable performance.
From a safety point of view, yes, a little car is safer because of all the people driving tanks with a big inertial advantage in a crash, but that's a slippery slope argument to complain about. Looking at it from another point of view, a small, light, maneuverable car has its own set of safety advantages.
And like Bob pointed out, given Gordon Murray's track record, you'd think people would have a little more faith!
Also, as I understand the law, you can not set out "traps" for burglars or others that you find undesirable. If someone was hurt, surely this guy would be up on criminal charges, to say nothing of potential liability if the "victim" sues him.
I'm assuming that Russia has national healthcare... if not, then I suppose it makes a twisted sort of sense.
The motion on the pedals of an airplane are a little odd, because you can both rotate the pedal and push it in, but it's all in the same direction... This system works by requiring you to push in a different direction.
I mean, cities in domes are a pretty common sci-fi concept...
I hope there's more to the story, because this sure reflects badly on the scientists involved.
I'm hoping that it's the first number that's wrong, because $150k is insanely high, and a deal breaker. The iBot wheelchair was a less than that (it was $26k) and the price was high enough to make the innovative product fail. I think if this product is to succeed they have to cut the cost to 1/10 of what's listed in the article, and I don't see any technical reason why they can't.
From a safety point of view, yes, a little car is safer because of all the people driving tanks with a big inertial advantage in a crash, but that's a slippery slope argument to complain about. Looking at it from another point of view, a small, light, maneuverable car has its own set of safety advantages.
And like Bob pointed out, given Gordon Murray's track record, you'd think people would have a little more faith!