Why don't they use Segways and or have runners that cover a few aisles?

I wonder how a professional runner would do at this job.

Segway.. is that still a thing? I thought everyone was riding those damn electric scooters now.

I like the graphic representation of multiplication as rectangles, works for me. Theory or method, I like to understand how things work so i can reinvent them myself whenever I forget the formula.

The problem is that it's confusing theory with the method. The right hand method(henceforth referred to as right method) shows that 35*2+35*10=35*12. It takes all of a couple minutes to show a class that. Spend a little time reminding them of the theory, put have them practice the right method. This isn't a mathematical theory exercise, this is performing basic arithmetic. It's why you segway into algebra later and show kids a(x +y)=ax+ay

Your video, Roping a wild Segway, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Wow, these guys are terrible.....they're terrible as segways and editing. and their comedy needs a laugh-track because I didn't know where I was supposed to laugh. And they could benefit from MUCH better writing....

Freedom of religion is independent of civilian armament.
History shows that religious persecution is normal for humanity, and in most cases it's perpetrated by the government. Sometimes to consolidate power (with government tie-ins to the main religion), and sometimes to pander to the grimace of a majority.

Ironically, in this country, freedom of religion only exists due to armed conflict, albeit merely as a side effect of independence from a religiously homogeneous ruling power.



It's true that Catalonians would likely have been shot at if they were armed.
However, likewise, the Spanish government will never grant the Catalans democracy so long as the Catalans are not armed - simply because it doesn't have to.
(*Barring self suicidal/sacrificial behavior on part of the Catalans that eventually [after much suffering] embarrasses the government into compliance - often under risk that 3rd parties will intervene if things continue)

When the government manufactures consent, it will be first in line to claim that people have democratic freedom. When the government fails to manufacture consent, it will crack down with force.

At the end of the day, in government, might makes right. Laws are only words on paper, the government's arms are what make the laws matter.

Likewise, democracy is no more than an idea. The people's force of arms (or threat thereof) is what assert's the people's dominance over the government.



You can say the police/military are stronger and it would never matter, however, the size of an [armed] population is orders of magnitude larger than the size of an army. Factor in the fact that the people need to cooperate with the government in order to support and supply the government's military. No government can withstand armed resistance of the population at large. This is one of the main lessons from The Prince.

Civilian armament is a bulwark against potentially colossal ills (albeit ills that come once every few generations).

Look at NK. The people get TV, radio, cell, from SK. They can look across the river and see massive cities on the Chinese side. They know they have to play along with the charade that their government demands. At the end of the day, without guns, things won't change.

Look at what happened during the Arab Spring. All these unarmed nations turned to external armed groups to fight for them to change their governments. All it accomplished was them becoming serfs to the invited 3rd parties. This is another lesson from The Prince : always take power by your own means, never rely on auxiliaries, because your auxiliaries will become your new rulers.






Below is general pontification. No longer a reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian armament does come with periodic tragedies. Those tragedies suck. But they're also much less significant than the risks of disarmament.
(Eg. School shootings, 7-11 robberies, etc -versus- Tamils vs Sri Lankan government, Rohingya vs Burmese government. etc.)

Regarding rifles specifically (all varieties combined), there is no point in arguing magnitudes (Around 400 lives per year - albeit taken in newsworthy large chunks). 'Falling out of bed' kills more people, same is true for 'Slip and fall'. No one fears their bed or a wet floor.

Pistols could go away and not matter much.
They have minimal militia utility, and they represent almost the entirety of firearms used in violent crime. (Albeit used to take lives in a non newsworthy 1 at a time manner)

(In the U.S.) If tragedy was the only way to die (otherwise infinite lifespan), you would live on average 9000 years. Guns, car crashes, drownings, etc. ~All tragedies included. (http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life)






A computer learning example I was taught:

Boy walking with his mom&dad down a path.
Lion #1 jumps out, eats his dad.
(Data : Specifically lion #1 eats his father.)
The boy and mom keep walking
Lion #2 jumps out, eats his mother.
(Data : Specifically lion #2 eats his mother)
The boy keeps walking
He comes across Lion #3.

Question : Should he be worried?

If you are going to generalize [the first two] lions and people, then yes, he should be worried.

In reality, lions may be very unlikely to eat people (versus say, a gazelle). But if you generalized from the prior two events, you will think they are dangerous.

(The relevance to computer learning is that : Computers learn racism, too. If you include racial data along with other data in a learning algorithm, that algorithm can and will be able to make decisions based on race. Not because the software cares - but because it can analyze and correlate.)

(Note : This is also why arguing religion is likely futile. If a child is raised being told that everything is as it is because God did it, then that becomes their basis for reality. Telling them that their belief in god is wrong, is like telling the boy in the example that lions are statistically quite safe to people. It challenges what they've learned.)



I mentioned this example, because it illustrates learning and perception. And it segways into my following analogy.



Here's a weird analogy, but it goes like this :

(I'm sure SJW minded people will shit themselves over it, but whatever)

"Gun ownership in today's urban society" is like "Black people in 80's white bred society".

2/3 of the population today has no contact with firearms (mostly urban folk)
They only see them on movies used to shoot people, and on the news used to shoot people.
If you are part of that 2/3, you see guns as murder tools.
If you are part of the remaining 1/3, you see guns like shoes or telephones - absolutely mundane daily items that harm nobody.

In the 80's, if you were in a white bred community, your only understanding of black people would be from movies where they are gangsters and shoot people, and from the nightly news where you heard about some black person who shot people.
If you were part of an 80's white bred community, you saw black people as dangerous likely killers.
If you were part of an 80's black/mixed community, you saw black people as regular people living the same mundane lives as anyone else.

In either case, you can analytically know better. But your gut feelings come from your experience.



Basically, I know guns look bad to 2/3 of the population. That won't change. People's beliefs are what they are.
I also know that the likelihood of being in a shooting is essentially zero.
I also know that history repeats itself, and -just in case- I'd rather live in an armed society than an unarmed society. Even if I don't carry a gun.

-scheherazade

Get him a Segway or Hoverboard. Too slow.

Interesting and worth my upvote....

Although the last minute where they quickly start shilling for advertising dollars with a very half-assed segway, continued background music, and tone that attempts to mask the transition (ha-ha sucker, we got you to listen to 15+ seconds of spam before you realized that the video was already over!) makes it a bit of a reluctant upvote.

That's the first time I've ever seen someone driving a Segway at a sporting event. I'm not trying to contest your assertion here, I just haven't seen it. To me it still seems like a really stupid idea and irresponsible both for the camera person and the employer. Drive this vehicle, but don't pay attention to where you're driving so you can get that 'shot' that you could have gotten had you been walking. Not to stir the pot too much, but if there are thousands of people doing this, I'm surprised other athletes haven't also been assaulted by out of control Segways.

A) it's his job to use the camera on the segway. It's not like he's just being lazy.

B) at 5 seconds, he hits the rail on the right. I don't think anyone could have recovered from that.

Basically, it was an accident. Sometimes unforeseen things happen. It's certainly unfortunate, but I don't think you could call it "careless".

Besides, even if you were pretty pissed, you do realise that "decking" someone is assault, right? Being involved in an accident isn't a legal defence for assaulting someone. If Bolt had punched him, he'd most likely be facing charges and 100% facing a lawsuit.

'Deck' may be over the top. Putting myself in his shoes, at the time, it may have seemed intentional. He just got up and kept going which seemed odd. I'm sure I would have asked the dude what had happened. In retrospect, after seeing the whole video, I'd be pretty pissed that this idiot is tooling along on his segway apparently not competent to operate it (and couldn't he have just walked along with the camera?). It's about as careless as texting while driving. I'm not sure if Usain Bolt is still winning races, but the legs this guy ran into are what puts food on his plate. So yes, I'd be pretty pissed.

WTF is that thing, like a hands-free Segway on drones?

Fucking cool. Why have I never heard of this before and where can I get one?!

*promote

Grahamslam's hamsterwheel is most likely.

Head has caster wheels and 2-3 (or more) magnets.

Body has basically a R/C car that can move sideways, and a gimbal mounted array of similar magnets to the head.

The R/C car moves everything, the gimbal moves the head. Doesn't need any segway tech, just a big weight at the bottom.

It would appear to me that the "head" is sitting on the body, not needing to be connected physically at all. Keeping in mind it is also remote controlled, I'm sure it has a "segway" type gyroscope/computer system to keep it from falling off, but the independent ability from the operator to spin it, or move it around on top of the body. And indeed the interior of the body would have it's own little wheeled robot, just like a hamster ball. That's my 2 cents.

It occurs to me you could probably manage it without too much in the way of Segway-esque magic. Have the outer shell as you'd expect, basically a big hamster ball, then a second ball inside it with all the clever stuff.

For the inside inside have most of the lower half be ballast of some sort - battery packs would be ideal for that - then 8 or so wheels pushing against the outer shell so you can move in a decent number of directions (might have to retract the wheels perpendicular to the direction of movement unless there's a more elegant solution I'm missing).

Then finally for the upper half make a very smooth dome, put a little cart on it whose position you can adjust with a couple of cables, stick a couple of strong magnets on the cart (need a motor on the cart too so you can rotate the head).

This is all based on my years of not having done anything remotely connected to model building!