This is IT? 1787
Dave (picked at random) and 8000 other slashdot readers wrote in to tell us that they too had been overcome by the relentless hype machine that is IT, Ginger, Segway, whatever. Read about IT in your favorite hype-dispensing media outlet, each of which thinks that it has an exclusive on the story of IT. Flash diagram of IT. Time. NY Times. Reuters. And don't forget to watch the advertisement, errr, "demonstration" of IT on Good Morning Consumers tomorrow. Update: 12/03 13:37 GMT by T : Segway's webmaster John Grohol points out the segway website as well.
Yep... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why waste all the time developing "gyros"... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wanna see something completely fscked? (Score:3, Informative)
"The site www.segway.com is running Apache/1.3.9 (Unix) mod_perl/1.21 on Linux." (Quote Netcraft)
So, um. Something's fishy. (I saw the same IE5-ish error in Moz 0.9.6)
um.. what hype? (Score:5, Informative)
Every once in a while for the past couple of months, I'd come across some tiny blurb about "the much-hyped (IT|Ginger)". But these blurbs, which seemed to be few and far between, primarily dealt with the "hype" surrounding this thing. They would have been a sort of meta-hype, except that there weren't even enough of those articles to constitute anything more than a sort of collective raised eyebrow.
There wasn't even a concerted effort to be mysterious about it, as far as I can tell. Nobody was saying much, and nobody much cared when it did come up.
So now I'm supposed to believe that this scooter thing was made out to be the next Sliced Bread, that everyone was quivering in anticipation, and that rumours have been swirling for months about its mysterious nature? Bullshit, we've barely heard of it. This is a strange sort of revisionist history indeed.
Or maybe I just don't go to the same parties that Time reporters do.
This has already been described (Score:1, Informative)
WhiteRabbit
Surprisingly narrow points of view (Score:2, Informative)
(Bias alert: I work with urban planners and transportation engineers, so my own viewpoint is likely skewed as hell, just in a different direction.)
Disruptive elements worth watching:
- Although it might be a macroeconomic edge for any urban area that adopts it, the Segway will really shine in fast-growing, high-density communities in developing nations. Other posts have mentioned it, but the point bears repeating: This is a no-brainer in the high-density cities of the developing world. No, it won't let farmers care for their fields faster and, no, it's not going to do a thing to eliminate the suburban-to-urban commute... but it will reduce infrastructure needs and congestion -- both of which are big-ticket drains on a city's economy.
- Assuming it gets the safety nod, planners and elected city officials are going to love this thing. The former group is pretty monolithic its desire to get people to make "mode changes" (translation: they want us out of the car and on the train/bus/Segway), and the latter are spending billions of dollars across the country to lure people back downtown because they believe density = lower overall cost of services = good. (And yes, luring people back downtown also equates to political power.) I don't know if Steve Jobs is right about cities naturally springing up around this technology, but it's a pretty short hop to think that some cities might dramatically restrict personal auto use in a downtown core if these caught on in a big way.
- The opportunity and use costs upset the existing paradigm. Getting around in a major U.S. city means you have your own car, you hoof it or you use some form of transit -- and, until now, the negatives of fixed-route transit or ridesharing (inflexible!) tended to balance against variable-route solutions such as cabs (pricey!), walking (slow!). The result: People, quite rationally, tend to prefer a personal vehicle for most trips. But now there's another option -- one that may have lower buy-in and use costs.
It will never take the place of cars completely or even mostly, but in cities like Chicago (which is experiencing a huge uptick in downtown residential development), this could be a way to dramatically reduce the number of cars on the street and increase the rate of residential urbanization.Honestly, I never thought a pro-auto, anti-transit guy like me would ever see anything like this.
Re:No kidding. (Score:1, Informative)
"Besides, IT is much better for the environment than a gas powered bike, especially in the dense population of cities."
This entirely depends on where your electricity comes from. Note that most cities in the United States today are still supplied with electrical power via coal-burning power plants, and even power from natural gas and distributed from a central source is more polluting than burning octane under your hood, due to losses in efficiency (you lose about 40% of your energy in the power plant itself converting from gas combustion->electricity, and then up to another 15% in the transmission wires, and perhaps another 25% converting that energy to mechanical power in your "Gingercycle").
Help save the environment -- buy one of the more efficient octane-burners, like the Toyota Corolla.
-- Guges --
Or better yet... (Score:2, Informative)
A properly tuned diesel engine is better for the environment than a gasoline powered engine of the same power output.
Market for IT? Well... electric scooters abound... (Score:1, Informative)
Hi.
I have to agree with the people who say that the US is maybe NOT the primary market for the Segway. I live in Shatoujiao, a small coastal town off the edge of Shenzhen, one of China's biggest economic centers outside of Shanghai. And when I arrived here a few weeks ago I was SHOCKED by the amount of scooter traffic.
The scooters here are basically like a souped up version of the razor, with small electric motor, and can get about 20mph or more.. Speed is controlled by handlebars and the scooters have a seat. (some of them two! one for the kids being taken to school!) And there is a typical motorcycle-like compartment on the lower back of the device to lock up things like groceries, etc.
Cost? RMB 800 (About USD 99.99)
While I see them, and they do look kinda silly, they make a lot of sense for this place, where the population is too great for car transport, and the slope of the mountains is too much for stress free biking. Walking is 'okay' but sometimes takes a while and it's really hot, a cool breeze on a scooter would sure help cool off.
Okay... That's one.
Another case in point: Discovery Bay, HK.
Discovery Bay is a community, mostly mixed, on an island in HK. They limit the number of cars that can be allowed on the island. Also, they limit the number of golf carts on the island. Everything else is pretty much built around walking/biking distance. I can see these things being perfectly suited to this kind of place as well, and I'm sure there are more communities like this around.
Both of the places I mentioned above are relatively pollution-free (in terms of car exhaust), especially when compared to nearby Shenzhen and HK.
Another place I can think of would be Boroccay, in the Phillipines, which currently has tons of motorcabs crisscrossing the place. It's kinda filthy, the motorcycles. I can see several beach resort-type places benefiting from the gyroscopic nature of Ginger, where they try to keep, more or less, natural walkways and paths instead of cementing or asphaulting things up and scarring the land.
So....
While I'm unconvinced about the American market, I would say the foreign and resort markets would benefit greatly from such a device, but the problem is, they've already found many solutions that are _MUCH CHEAPER_.
Why should I buy a Segway for $3000 when I can get something almost the same for $100? That's what I'd like to know.
(I'll probably buy one of these scooters to take back to the States... *grin*)
Re:Or better yet... (Score:2, Informative)
USA No, London Maybe (Score:5, Informative)
Here in London, it's pretty pointless to own a car, unless you use it to get out of the city. The city is flat, space is at a premium, and walking is actually a viable option, if you've got the time. 3 million people endure the horrors of the London Underground (hot, smelly, crowded, frequently broken) every day, simply because there aren't any alternatives. Segway might just work here, since Londoners are typically businesspeople, and won't do that nasty physically active stuff, like riding bikes.
As an example, I walked to work once or twice during Tube strikes this year, and it took about an hour. If I could Segway it in 20 mins, this would be *faster* than the tube, and hugely more enjoyable. All I'd need is covered pathways to keep the rain off and I'd be set.
Re:IT's not for you! (Score:3, Informative)
So, what have we learned? People in Idaho can afford to buy cars, people in rural China cannot. People in Idaho can afford to have a quality of life as good as those in New York, those in rural China cannot. And for that matter, most people in urban china can't afford to buy a car, to say nothing of a $3k motor scooter. That would be like average Joe in New York city making $25k/year buying a $75k car.
They just demoed it on ABC / Good Morning America (Score:5, Informative)
It's fucking cool, OK?
So, all you naysayers out there asking questions like "how does this replace a bicycle?" or "how does it corner?" Maybe you should have waited to see!
First, these things look fucking MANUVERABLE. They turn on a dime. If you're stationary, and you turn the handlebars, you can do a stationary 360 if you want. Try THAT on a bike. While Dean Kamen was being interviewed, he was standing there idling, kind of casually rolling back and forth.
Several times, Kamen took his hands completely off the handlebars and continued along. The platform kept perfect balance and kept going straight.
Gibson picked it up faster than Sawyer, and Sawyer almost fell off hers once (she forgot what she was doing and panicked, I think, half-leaping from the platform as it rolled towards the crowd). But by the end of the first commercial break, they had both mastered it, and were zipping all around the plaza with speed and aplomb.
They put speed-limits on the newscasters' units, but Kamen's unit was fully unregulated and looked like it could really move fast. (Imagine the disaster if either of those newscasters had suffered an injury on live television on the very first demonstration!)
Some other demonstrators ran an obstacle course, including ramps, rocks, shallow steps (nothing like a staircase, but at least 2 inches high), and yes indeed, water. One of the demonstrators even did a stationary 360 while stopped on the middle of the ramp. It was freaky looking. He rotated around, became diagonal, then straightened out and the thing didn't budge.
Guys, this thing looks really cool. It is time for you to give this thing the props it deserves. If you still want to knock it, fine, but remember: the "hype" attached with this thing came from totally unrealistic expectations and wild speculation, fueled in part by Slashdot reader comments.
$3000 is the INITIAL mass produced version. (Score:4, Informative)
It took more than a decade for VCR's to drop from over $1000 to less than $100.
-----
Re:IT's not for you! (Score:1, Informative)
Chinaman (n., pl.) Chinaman
1. Usually Offensive. a Chinese or a person of Chinese descent.
2. (l.c.) a person who imports or sells china.
3. (often l.c.) Political Slang. a person regarded as one's benefactor, sponsor, or protector: Example: to see one's chinaman about a favor.
4. "a Chinaman's chance,"Usually Offensive. the slightest chance: Example: He hasn't a Chinaman's chance of getting that job.
Just FYI, I wouldn't have immediately thought of it as being derogatory either.
they have it streaming, but right nows it's chunky (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What is important in technology? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes; a valuable target. Today, it's not worth it to develop a missile that can target those individual troopers, because they're worth less than the missile in cold, harsh, absolute financial terms.
Powered armor would change that.
Furthermore, with enhanced strength you have the ability to carry a whole lot more firepower than a regular joe.
Which just increases how much you're worth, and how worthwhile it is to take you out with a missile.
In fact if this wasn't a desired technology, why is DARPA and several other DoD agencies spending tons of your tax dollars in researching this?
The military already has classified patents on powered armor. But they don't equip the troops with it. Why? Because even if the missile costs $20,000 or $200,000, it's cheaper than the powered armor and the specialized training to use it, so it's more cost effective to equip the troops with those to take out the enemy powered armor.
Besides, military is not the only useful application for Mech Armors. Think factories. Right now you need one of those expensive lifters (or whatever you call them) that lift heavy boxes, but can only operate in very standard environments (right box sizes, righ shelf sizes, right distance between shelves, etc.). If the cost of one of these armors is at least equal to those lifters, you have a winner since you save money elsewhere (Think the armor from the end of Alien 2).
If you've got the technology to make a mecha, you've got the technology to make the fork lift more accurate, and for the fork lift you don't need gyroscopic stabilization and sophisticated "fly-by-wire" controls. So you still don't build a mecha, because it gains you nothing toward fixing the problem that can't be fixed better and cheaper without one.
Again you're just showing a lack of vision similar to other posts that don't see value for some technology for them or their immedate surroundings, and automatically assume it's not valuable for anybody else.
No, I'm showing the vision to be able to look BEYOND the gee-wiz technology into the actual solving of actual problems.
Mecha are visually appealing, and I cheered like everybody else when they showed up on Andromeda, but it's fiction. We could build practical mecha now. We don't, because any technology you can build that lets you put more armor on a walker lets you put even MORE armor on a tank. Any technology you can build that lets you give an exosuit powerloader arms lets you give a forklift articulation. Any technology that lets you put powered armor on a Mobile Infantry trooper lets me build a guided missile to take him out, and I don't have to put my guy through six months of training to drive the thing; I can give him a cartoon explaining how to shoot you.
Reading Slashdot Posts considered harmful (Score:2, Informative)
Moderators and posters alike seem to be struck by idiocy here. Your job as a moderator isn't just to rate how much like the poster's writing, it's also to filter out totally inaccurate information. And there are a lot of high-rated posts on this topic that are totally incorrect.
I've seen people posting that this creature travels at 17mph. It's 12, according to the segway site.
I've seen people questioning the maximum range of 17 miles. The advertised effective range is 11 miles.
People complain about lack of cargo ability. They say there is a planned attachment that will pull 300 lbs of cargo.
The Time article says it is available now to corporations for around $8000, and will be available to the general public next year for $3000.
Shame on you morons who can write but can't read. Then again, you can't read this, either.
The one truly valid objection I have is that even at 12mph, it's still 3-4 times faster than most pedestrians. Most cities don't allow bicycles, which usually stick to around 12mph in the city, to ride on the sidewalk. So without good bike lanes everywhere, riding one of these around town could be difficult or dangerous.