... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's been
known for thousands of years?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080222/sc_livescience/fastestwayuphillszigzag;_ylt=Auu3qzIGwkLWD8nWxSQBuGME1vAI
Duh!
I'm starting to think it's about time to jerk the tax exempt status from
these supposed "institutions of higher learning".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Feb 23, 2:02 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jeff" wrote
>
> > It wasn't known; it was *believed* There is a HUGE difference between
> > the two.
>
> LOL ... what a profound revelation!
>
> > Either way, I consider all efforts to further
> > the body of knowledge worthy endeavors. Certainly we'll have
> > differences when it comes to public policy, but I favor policies that
> > foster a climate of intellectual pursuit.
>
> Probably won't hurt to take the rest of the day off and rest from the
> exertion. A little reflective gazing at any hill that humans have been
> climbing for the last few thousand years will do wonders for pomposity.
>
> Jeeesus!
Ah, yes, the ol' zigzag path. Even the fool cows in Appalachia know
that straight down is not fast. The mouhntains--that serve as pastures
west of here, and a few places around here--are ringed with paths, but
have NO paths going straight downhill. It do seem that they did the
study long before the hotshot scientists.
But, hey, maybe it's the same northern U.S. group that spent a quarter
million bucks a few years ago...studying the mating habits of
BRAZILIAN tree frogs. One wonders: WTF is wrong with U.S. tree frogs?
Ain't they getting any?
On Feb 23, 10:32 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's been
> known for thousands of years?
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080222/sc_livescience/fastestwa...
>
> Duh!
>
> I'm starting to think it's about time to jerk the tax exempt status from
> these supposed "institutions of higher learning".
>
It wasn't known; it was *believed* There is a HUGE difference between
the two. Sometimes beliefs are validated by methodical scrutiny,
sometimes they are not. Either way, I consider all efforts to further
the body of knowledge worthy endeavors. Certainly we'll have
differences when it comes to public policy, but I favor policies that
foster a climate of intellectual pursuit. If that means tax breaks for
these institutes you loathe, well, we can each lobby accordingly.
There are a lot of woodworking beliefs. I'd love to see how they stand
up to testing....
Cheers,
Jeff
"Swingman" wrote:
> Points well taken ... perhaps my muscle memory from writing that big check
> to the government last month is still exerting pressure on my perception?
Trying to justify the investment in basic research, especially when a known
objective is not apparent, can be a little difficult.
Early in my career, I interviewed for a position as a research engineer.
When asked by the interviewer, why I should be considered for the job, my
response was simple.
"I offer you my ignorance of your industry. I bring no perceived notions,
just a clean slate and the desire to travel down the uncharted road to see
where it will lead."
Got the job and a very nice increase in salary that went with it.
During my tenure, did I find some new and startling discovery?
Not really, but was able to define several existing ideas as being shall we
say not really what they appeared to be.
Basic research is a lot like a trip to a gambling casino, except you
probably have better odds at the casino; however, when you hit, the ROI can
be tremendous.
Lew
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
> The story goes that a Roman visitor to Carthage was
> watching elephants used as beasts of burden and
> asked his guide, "How do you get those giant beasts
> to obey you?". His guide replied "We castrate them
> to make them docile." "How do you do that?", asked
> the visitor." "We wait until they are drinking and then
> we come up behind them with two big flat stones and
> whack them together." was the reply. "Great Jupiter!"
> the Roman exclaimed, "that must hurt!" "Nah", replied
> his host. "We keep our thumbs on the outside."
That is also the process that is used by "Abe's Rent a Camel" to convert a 2
day camel into a 4 day camel.
Lew
Swingman wrote:
>
> "Maxwell Lol" wrote in message
>> "Swingman" writes:
>>
>> > ... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's
> been
>> > known for thousands of years?
>>
>> It's not a conclusion that the URL describes. The big news is that
>> they developed a simple mathematical model. That's very different.
>
> Once again the profundity in rebuttal is underwhelming.
>
> It is different ... far different than the stated topic, which you ignore
> completely.
>
>> Think of the computer gaming world, where the programmers write
>> software where creatures act realistically. Some of the earlier games
>> had problems with the simple task of finding a path from one spot to
>> another. I've seen games where creatures and people get stuck in a
>> cul-de-sac while trying to go to a desired location.
>>
>> With the more realistic 3D games, creatures also need to find ways up
>> a steep hill. If the model tried to include the physics of traction,
>> and they got stuck by going the shortest, but steepest path, it would
>> seem dumb to us. But until the software has the right algorithm,
>> that's a potential problem.
>>
>> But no longer.
>
> O'boy, so my tax dollars are used (for they _inarguably_ are if he is
> employed by a tax exempt "institution of higher learning" in this country)
> to enable some fatassed kid to spend his time playing games in a virtual
> world because he's too fucking ill equipped to deal with the real one?
>
> ... yeah, that ought to really further human progress!
>
> Sorry, Dude ... I'm totally under whelmed with your logic.
>
Swingman, in this case, this has use elsewhere as well, where it does
make sense for taxpayer dollars to be spent developing mathematical models
that facilitate autonomous navigation of hilly terrain. Anything from
battlespace simulations to programming small autonomous vehicles could make
use of an efficient navigation algorithm.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Jeff" wrote
> It wasn't known; it was *believed* There is a HUGE difference between
> the two.
LOL ... what a profound revelation!
> Either way, I consider all efforts to further
> the body of knowledge worthy endeavors. Certainly we'll have
> differences when it comes to public policy, but I favor policies that
> foster a climate of intellectual pursuit.
Probably won't hurt to take the rest of the day off and rest from the
exertion. A little reflective gazing at any hill that humans have been
climbing for the last few thousand years will do wonders for pomposity.
Jeeesus!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Feb 23, 4:33 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote
>
> > Do you suppose the results may be useful to the Park service
> > when laying out trails,
>
> Already accomplished and in practice, since the first "park trail" went up a
> hill. See if you find one that doesn't.
>
As noted above:
It wasn't known; it was *believed* There is a HUGE difference between
the two. Sometimes beliefs are validated by methodical scrutiny,
sometimes they are not.
> > or to infantry commanders who need to
> > get from point A to point B as fast as possible.
>
> Seems Hannibal already figured that out in the Alps ... a couple of thousand
> years ago, and with elephants no less. :)
>
I'm doubtful that much detail of his route is believed, let
alone known.
For example Carthaginians domesticated African Elephants,
which are not nearly as docile as Indian Elephants. That
seems to be a lost art today,
The story goes that a Roman visitor to Carthage was
watching elephants used as beasts of burden and
asked his guide, "How do you get those giant beasts
to obey you?". His guide replied "We castrate them
to make them docile." "How do you do that?", asked
the visitor." "We wait until they are drinking and then
we come up behind them with two big flat stones and
whack them together." was the reply. "Great Jupiter!"
the Roman exclaimed, "that must hurt!" "Nah", replied
his host. "We keep our thumbs on the outside."
--
FF
"Swingman" <[email protected]> writes:
> Except that the study, and the resulting mathematical expression, are touted
> as being based solely on the "metabolic cost" to a _human_ walking up a
> slope.
It's a MODEL. That means you can change the numbers, and have it work
for a gopher, a solder wearing 50 pounds of armour, or a tank.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> writes:
> "Maxwell Lol" wrote in message
> > "Swingman" writes:
> >
> > > ... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's
> been
> > > known for thousands of years?
> >
> > It's not a conclusion that the URL describes. The big news is that
> > they developed a simple mathematical model. That's very different.
>
> Once again the profundity in rebuttal is underwhelming.
>
> It is different ... far different than the stated topic, which you ignore
> completely.
The "stated topic" didn't match the paper.
> O'boy, so my tax dollars are used
....for all sorts of crap. You haven't provided any evidence that
taxes paid for this study.
If it did, the impact would be pennies, while the impact of the war is
thousasands of dollars to your wallett.
>(for they _inarguably_ are if he is
> employed by a tax exempt "institution of higher learning" in this country)
> to enable some fatassed kid to spend his time playing games in a virtual
> world because he's too fucking ill equipped to deal with the real one?
What on earth are you talking about?
I gave one example of how it could be used, (because you didn't
understand the point of the report) but is should be obvious it was
developed to improve BIOLOGICAL models.
But I guess you have to have something to bitch about.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> writes:
> ... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's been
> known for thousands of years?
It's not a conclusion that the URL describes. The big news is that
they developed a simple mathematical model. That's very different.
Think of the computer gaming world, where the programmers write
software where creatures act realistically. Some of the earlier games
had problems with the simple task of finding a path from one spot to
another. I've seen games where creatures and people get stuck in a
cul-de-sac while trying to go to a desired location.
With the more realistic 3D games, creatures also need to find ways up
a steep hill. If the model tried to include the physics of traction,
and they got stuck by going the shortest, but steepest path, it would
seem dumb to us. But until the software has the right algorithm,
that's a potential problem.
But no longer.
On Feb 23, 10:32=A0am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's bee=
n
> known for thousands of years?
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080222/sc_livescience/fastestwa...
>
> Duh!
>
> I'm starting to think it's about time to jerk the tax exempt status from
> these supposed "institutions of higher learning".
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 12/14/07
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
They should have handed that study off to The MythBusters. They get
results.
Like that conundrum of what makes you wetter, walking or running in
the rain.
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> ... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's
>> been known for thousands of years?
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080222/sc_livescience/fastestwayu
>> phillszigzag;_ylt=Auu3qzIGwkLWD8nWxSQBuGME1vAI
>>
>> Duh!
>>
>> I'm starting to think it's about time to jerk the tax exempt status
>> from these supposed "institutions of higher learning".
>>
> You seem to imply that these studies were funded by US taxpayers. That
> isn't so. I looked up the acknowledgements in the original paper and it
> turns out to be funded from British sources:
Well, excuse me ... funded by the British taxpayer then, eh? :)
That notwithstanding, you provide nothing in your "documentation" that the
study "author", Marcos Llobera of the University of Washington
("co-authored" by the UK guy.), used no US taxpayer's funds whatsoever for
the "study"?
... and that would be about as hard to swallow as the need for the "study",
in any event.
> Yes it is esoteric (IMHO) but it seems interesting to me that you can
> mathematically express this "problem". It may not be that much more
> esoteric than the math that underlies 3D CAD ...
Sorry, Hans ... as a taxpayer, "esoteric" doesn't begin to describe the
ivory tower idiocy of that endeavor, IMHO. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote
> Do you suppose the results may be useful to the Park service
> when laying out trails,
Already accomplished and in practice, since the first "park trail" went up a
hill. See if you find one that doesn't.
> or to infantry commanders who need to
> get from point A to point B as fast as possible.
Seems Hannibal already figured that out in the Alps ... a couple of thousand
years ago, and with elephants no less. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Mark & Juanita" wrote
> Swingman, in this case, this has use elsewhere as well, where it does
> make sense for taxpayer dollars to be spent developing mathematical models
> that facilitate autonomous navigation of hilly terrain. Anything from
> battlespace simulations to programming small autonomous vehicles could
make
> use of an efficient navigation algorithm.
Except that the study, and the resulting mathematical expression, are touted
as being based solely on the "metabolic cost" to a _human_ walking up a
slope.
Perhaps in a very limited way, but pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical of the
usefulness of correlating a mathematical expression based on biologic human
"metabolic cost" to "autonomous navigation".
IOW, I'm still convinced that it's more on the order of a boondoogle, than a
boon, to mankind. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> ... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's
> been known for thousands of years?
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080222/sc_livescience/fastestwayu
> phillszigzag;_ylt=Auu3qzIGwkLWD8nWxSQBuGME1vAI
>
> Duh!
>
> I'm starting to think it's about time to jerk the tax exempt status
> from these supposed "institutions of higher learning".
>
You seem to imply that these studies were funded by US taxpayers. That
isn't so. I looked up the acknowledgements in the original paper and it
turns out to be funded from British sources:
Quote from the paper:
We thank Dr. Patricia Kramer (University of Washington) for critical
comments, Prof. D. Helbing (Technische Universität Dresden) and Dr. I.
Farkas (Eötvös University) for providing background information. We also
thank Professors A. Minetti (Manchester) and R. McNeil Alexander (Leeds)
for useful correspondence, and Dr. J. Steele (University College, London)
for useful discussions and encouragement. This project was initiated when
M.Ll held an Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship at the Department
of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK. We also acknowledge the
sponsorship of the AHRC Centre for the Evolutionary Analysis of Cultural
Behaviour (CEACB) (University College, London/University of Southampton
2001-5).
(I am able to look up things like this because of my affiliation with a
NY City medical school, and yes, my salary comes from NIH).
Also, the purpose of the study was to be able to look at patterns of
human travel from times without written records, and the authors conclude
their paper as follows:
Specific empirical studies of our model might include investigating the
decrease in variance of walking slopes with increasing steepness, as well
as determining the amplitude of switchbacks and a comparison between
existing slopes and predicted walking slopes. The model can also be used
to show the effects of different individual physiologies and to consider
other species. For example, elephants seem to avoid going uphill.
Presumably for them, the critical slopes are very low (Wall et al.,
2006). But snow leopard, ibex and mountain goats seem likely to have
physiologies which are less sensitive to climbing. For them, perhaps, the
critical slopes are high. Finally, we note that our formulation
successfully combines research in physiology ([Margaria, 1938] and
[Minetti, 1995]) with social modelling ([Helbing and Molnár, 1995] and
[Helbing et al., 1997]).
Yes it is esoteric (IMHO) but it seems interesting to me that you can
mathematically express this "problem". It may not be that much more
esoteric than the math that underlies 3D CAD ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> ... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something
>>> that's been known for thousands of years?
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080222/sc_livescience/fastestwa
>>> yu phillszigzag;_ylt=Auu3qzIGwkLWD8nWxSQBuGME1vAI
>>>
>>> Duh!
>>>
>>> I'm starting to think it's about time to jerk the tax exempt status
>>> from these supposed "institutions of higher learning".
>>>
>> You seem to imply that these studies were funded by US taxpayers.
>> That isn't so. I looked up the acknowledgements in the original
>> paper and it turns out to be funded from British sources:
>
> Well, excuse me ... funded by the British taxpayer then, eh? :)
Maybe, I really don't know what the British AHRC is. Everything else
seems to be not from a government entity, at least not directly.
> That notwithstanding, you provide nothing in your "documentation" that
> the study "author", Marcos Llobera of the University of Washington
> ("co-authored" by the UK guy.), used no US taxpayer's funds whatsoever
> for the "study"?
The paper is listed in the PubMed database, and there its funding is
listed as "PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't". That is for me close
enough to proof that there was no US tax payer money spent for this
study.
M Llobera is not listed in NIH's CRISP database, where you can search for
"principal investigators" and their grants
<http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/crisp_query.generate_screen>.
> ... and that would be about as hard to swallow as the need for the
> "study", in any event.
Well, "need" is a really big word. Is there really a "need" for space
exploration? Research into a disease that affects only 150 or so people
in the US?
>> Yes it is esoteric (IMHO) but it seems interesting to me that you can
>> mathematically express this "problem". It may not be that much more
>> esoteric than the math that underlies 3D CAD ...
>
> Sorry, Hans ... as a taxpayer, "esoteric" doesn't begin to describe
> the ivory tower idiocy of that endeavor, IMHO. ;)
We'll have to somewhat disagree on that! A study like that isn't all
that high on my list of priorities either, but IMNSHO <grin> itisn't
idiocy. In fact, some of the studies that Senator Proxmire used to give
"Golden Fleece" awards to were far from idiocy either, although they may
have sounded like it.
For the record, I am involved in medical research, and do not always
agree with the directions my boss wants to go in.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Maxwell Lol" wrote
>
>> But I guess you have to have something to bitch about.
>
> Just poor reading comprehension, fuzzy logic, and irrelevance ... none of
> which you seem to have improved upon thus far.
Some times they latch on and just won't let go. ;~)
On Feb 24, 10:07=A0am, Maxwell Lol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> With the more realistic 3D games, creatures also need to find ways up
> a steep hill. If the model tried to include the physics of traction,
> and they got stuck by going the shortest, but steepest path, it would
> seem dumb to us. But until the software has the right algorithm,
> that's a potential problem.
>
> But no longer.
Wow, what a relief! I can tear up my suicide note now that it is all
taken care of. Damn that was close.
r
On Feb 23, 12:49 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 10:32 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's been
> > known for thousands of years?
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080222/sc_livescience/fastestwa...
>
> > Duh!
>
> > I'm starting to think it's about time to jerk the tax exempt status from
> > these supposed "institutions of higher learning".
>
> It wasn't known; it was *believed* There is a HUGE difference between
> the two. Sometimes beliefs are validated by methodical scrutiny,
> sometimes they are not.
Bingo!
Do you suppose the results may be useful to the Park service
when laying out trails, or to infantry commanders who need to
get from point A to point B as fast as possible.
--
FF
On Feb 23, 3:05 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> We'll have to somewhat disagree on that! A study like that isn't all
> that high on my list of priorities either, but IMNSHO <grin> itisn't
> idiocy. In fact, some of the studies that Senator Proxmire used to give
> "Golden Fleece" awards to were far from idiocy either, although they may
> have sounded like it.
>
I don't know if it got one of his awards or not but the Feds once
funded a study of the efficacy of a breast enlargement device.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
The results of the study were used to prosecute a mail fraud
case against the company selling the device.
--
FF
On Feb 23, 4:14 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 23, 12:49 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 10:32 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > ... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's been
> > > known for thousands of years?
>
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080222/sc_livescience/fastestwa...
>
> > > Duh!
>
> > > I'm starting to think it's about time to jerk the tax exempt status from
> > > these supposed "institutions of higher learning".
>
> > It wasn't known; it was *believed* There is a HUGE difference between
> > the two. Sometimes beliefs are validated by methodical scrutiny,
> > sometimes they are not.
>
> Bingo!
>
> Do you suppose the results may be useful to the Park service
> when laying out trails, or to infantry commanders who need to
> get from point A to point B as fast as possible.
>
Dunno about the Park Service, but I do know that 50 years ago, Marine
Corps infantry training included that information.
On Feb 25, 12:22 am, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:34:54 -0800 (PST), Fred the Red Shirt
>
>
> ...
>
> >For example Carthaginians domesticated African Elephants,
> >which are not nearly as docile as Indian Elephants. That
> >seems to be a lost art today,
>
> Not a totally lost art. If you want to see "domesticated" African
> elephants, go to Livingstone Zambia and the Victoria falls, You can go
> on elephant rides and elephant "safaris" on african elephants.
> Eldest daughter did it over the Christmas break from her job in Kigali
> Rwanda.
> ...
Did the guides have bandages on their thumbs?
--
FF
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:34:54 -0800 (PST), Fred the Red Shirt
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 23, 4:33 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote
>>
>> > Do you suppose the results may be useful to the Park service
>> > when laying out trails,
>>
>> Already accomplished and in practice, since the first "park trail" went up a
>> hill. See if you find one that doesn't.
>>
>
>As noted above:
>
>It wasn't known; it was *believed* There is a HUGE difference between
>the two. Sometimes beliefs are validated by methodical scrutiny,
>sometimes they are not.
>
>> > or to infantry commanders who need to
>> > get from point A to point B as fast as possible.
>>
>> Seems Hannibal already figured that out in the Alps ... a couple of thousand
>> years ago, and with elephants no less. :)
>>
>
>I'm doubtful that much detail of his route is believed, let
>alone known.
>
>For example Carthaginians domesticated African Elephants,
>which are not nearly as docile as Indian Elephants. That
>seems to be a lost art today,
Not a totally lost art. If you want to see "domesticated" African
elephants, go to Livingstone Zambia and the Victoria falls, You can go
on elephant rides and elephant "safaris" on african elephants.
Eldest daughter did it over the Christmas break from her job in Kigali
Rwanda.
>
>The story goes that a Roman visitor to Carthage was
>watching elephants used as beasts of burden and
>asked his guide, "How do you get those giant beasts
>to obey you?". His guide replied "We castrate them
>to make them docile." "How do you do that?", asked
>the visitor." "We wait until they are drinking and then
>we come up behind them with two big flat stones and
>whack them together." was the reply. "Great Jupiter!"
>the Roman exclaimed, "that must hurt!" "Nah", replied
>his host. "We keep our thumbs on the outside."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
"Han" wrote
> We'll have to somewhat disagree on that! A study like that isn't all
> that high on my list of priorities either, but IMNSHO <grin> itisn't
> idiocy. In fact, some of the studies that Senator Proxmire used to give
> "Golden Fleece" awards to were far from idiocy either, although they may
> have sounded like it.
>
> For the record, I am involved in medical research, and do not always
> agree with the directions my boss wants to go in.
Points well taken ... perhaps my muscle memory from writing that big check
to the government last month is still exerting pressure on my perception?
... ouch! :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Maxwell Lol" wrote in message
> "Swingman" writes:
>
> > ... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's
been
> > known for thousands of years?
>
> It's not a conclusion that the URL describes. The big news is that
> they developed a simple mathematical model. That's very different.
Once again the profundity in rebuttal is underwhelming.
It is different ... far different than the stated topic, which you ignore
completely.
> Think of the computer gaming world, where the programmers write
> software where creatures act realistically. Some of the earlier games
> had problems with the simple task of finding a path from one spot to
> another. I've seen games where creatures and people get stuck in a
> cul-de-sac while trying to go to a desired location.
>
> With the more realistic 3D games, creatures also need to find ways up
> a steep hill. If the model tried to include the physics of traction,
> and they got stuck by going the shortest, but steepest path, it would
> seem dumb to us. But until the software has the right algorithm,
> that's a potential problem.
>
> But no longer.
O'boy, so my tax dollars are used (for they _inarguably_ are if he is
employed by a tax exempt "institution of higher learning" in this country)
to enable some fatassed kid to spend his time playing games in a virtual
world because he's too fucking ill equipped to deal with the real one?
... yeah, that ought to really further human progress!
Sorry, Dude ... I'm totally under whelmed with your logic.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 24 Feb 2008 21:54:40 -0500, Maxwell Lol <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Swingman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Except that the study, and the resulting mathematical expression, are touted
>> as being based solely on the "metabolic cost" to a _human_ walking up a
>> slope.
>
>It's a MODEL. That means you can change the numbers, and have it work
>for a gopher, a solder wearing 50 pounds of armour, or a tank.
LOL As a runner and a backpacker, I find it relatively difficult to
believe that you can convert data based on VO2 capacity for humans to
tanks that would have an infinite number of gearing and HP
possibilities.
However, this discussion comes down to whether the conclusion of the
study is "apparent and obvious to most, but without precision" or if
so many intelligent people do not see it as "apparent and obvious"
that the expenditure of funds is justified. I think the former, but
certainly do not have the statistical data to make any claim other
than an opinion.
Additionally, most elevating trails that I'm familiar with use the
basic principle of switchback, but the terrain dictactes how often and
when the switchbacks occur. This I would assume to make the
trailblazing practical. Leads me to wonder what the study brings to
the party.
my $.02 worth.
Frank
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:32:15 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>... it cost the taxpayer to fund this dufus' study of something that's been
>known for thousands of years?
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080222/sc_livescience/fastestwayuphillszigzag;_ylt=Auu3qzIGwkLWD8nWxSQBuGME1vAI
>
>Duh!
>
>I'm starting to think it's about time to jerk the tax exempt status from
>these supposed "institutions of higher learning".
I read that earlier and had similar thoughts. As a veteran backpacker
I think a simple trip up the Forney Creek Trail to Clingmans Dome
would teach that lesson with aboslutly no damage to the University
Endowment fund. No additional study necessary.
Frank