Segway listed as #1 on list of 50 worst inventions.

[davidthefat]

I think bikes are a way better form of transportation than the seg way...


edit: if people think I am quick to judge, why are the same people quick to judge against me?

[chris31]

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

I think the segway should be on here. In my opinion it is incredibly dangerous for the non existent benefits. My design professor investigates segway accidents and needless to say we watched quite a few accidents caught on film including someone breaking there neck due to the battery failing without warning. Just some food for thought

After taking ME 2110 at Georgia Tech (the class you are discussing) I feel like the Segway is an interesting invention but it does have some safety problems (all sorts of everyday things have safety problem to though).

EDIT: After flipping through the list, I see that it is basically a list of 50 things that one person doesnt like.

[davidthefat]

Post: Re: Segway listed as #1 on list of 50 worst inventions.
Reputation Score: negative
Reputation Reason: Lumping obesity, smoking, and alcoholism in the same group? You need to do some research -- and some maturing -- before opening your mouth again.

Q: What is the cost of obesity?

A: On average, people who are considered obese pay $1,429 (42 percent) more in health care costs than normal-weight individuals.[12]

What is the cost of obesity by insurance status?

A: For each obese beneficiary:

* Medicare pays $1,723 more than it pays for normal-weight beneficiaries.
* Medicaid pays $1,021 more than it pays for normal-weight beneficiaries.
* Private insurers pay $1,140 more than they pay for normal-weight beneficiaries.[12]

What is the cost of obesity by the type of service provided?

A: For each obese patient:

* Medicare pays $95 more for an inpatient service, $693 more for a non-inpatient service, and $608 more for prescription drugs in comparison with normal-weight patients.
* Medicaid pays $213 more for an inpatient service,$175 more for a non-inpatient service, and $230 more for prescription drugs in comparison with normal-weight patients.
* Private insurers pay $443 more for an inpatient service, $398 more for a non-inpatient service, and $284 more for prescription drugs in comparison with normal-weight patients.[12]

source:http://www.win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/index.htm

Q: How many adults age 20 and older are overweight or obese (Body Mass Index, or BMI, > 25)?

A: Over two-thirds of U.S. adults are overweight or obese.[4]

All adults: 68 percent
Women: 64.1 percent
Men: 72.3 percent

Thats alot of people... and there are 305,689,000 americans, 68% of that is 207 868 520 americans overweight.

thats $297 044 115 080 more spent on health care for people that are obese... That is a lot of money
$ 297.04411508 billion (US dollars)

http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/...6/smoking.html
compared to $72.7 Billion spent on tobacco related illnesses, I think obesity is a way bigger problem...

Now think of the possibilities that extra money can be spent on, help ending poverty?

[Garret]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Q: How many adults age 20 and older are overweight or obese (Body Mass Index, or BMI, > 25)?

A: Over two-thirds of U.S. adults are overweight or obese.[4]

All adults: 68 percent
Women: 64.1 percent
Men: 72.3 percent

Thats alot of people... and there are 305,689,000 americans, 68% of that is 207 868 520 americans overweight.

thats $297 044 115 080 more spent on health care for people that are obese... That is a lot of money
$ 297.04411508 billion (US dollars)

http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/...6/smoking.html
compared to $72.7 Billion spent on tobacco related illnesses, I think obesity is a way bigger problem...

Now think of the possibilities that extra money can be spent on, help ending poverty?

The 300 million number is for the entire US population not the adult population. i get your point but your numbers are off.
Many people who are overweight cannot lose weight easily either due to lack of time to exercise, medical problems, and other factors factors that are somewhat to completely out of their control.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Garret

The 300 million number is for the entire US population not the adult population. i get your point but your numbers are off.
Many people who are overweight cannot lose weight easily either due to lack of time to exercise, medical problems, and other factors factors that are somewhat to completely out of their control.

Highlight mine.

Who ever said losing weight was easy? Everybody wants an instant gratification success without any real hard work. Just pop a few magic pills and everything is better! People who want to seriously lose weight need to make major decisions that slightly alter everything they do.

Instead of driving 60 miles to work, move closer to a walkable neighborhoods and walk/bike to work. Bingo, free exercise while you commute. Bonus points if you can also walk to the most common stores you'll need (grocery store, convenience store, pharmacy, etc).

When in the grocery store, don't buy junk food. If you don't have any in your house, you can't eat it.

Keep a list of all the calories you eat everyday; after a while you'll begin to dread having to add that snack to the list and you'll just skip eating it.

Stop driving to the corner store to buy a gallon of milk; seriously if it's less than a half mile away you can walk there and back in under 15 minutes.

Get rid of your leaf blower. Use a rake. Unless you have a back condition, get rid of your snow blower and use a shovel.

If you have to eat fast food the breakfast menu is generally more healthy than the lunch/dinner menu.

Eliminate high-fructose corn syrup from your diet. It's not natural, and the enzymes in your stomach can't break it down easily. Thus, your body doesn't accurately know when it's full, and you'll tend to eat more food than you need.

It's lots of little decisions like this compounded together that all help reduce weight. There is no magic solution other than consistent hard work and personal will power.

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Highlight mine.

Who ever said losing weight was easy? Everybody wants an instant gratification success without any real hard work. Just pop a few magic pills and everything is better! People who want to seriously lose weight need to make major decisions that slightly alter everything they do.

Instead of driving 60 miles to work, move closer to a walkable neighborhoods and walk/bike to work. Bingo, free exercise while you commute. Bonus points if you can also walk to the most common stores you'll need (grocery store, convenience store, pharmacy, etc).

When in the grocery store, don't buy junk food. If you don't have any in your house, you can't eat it.

Keep a list of all the calories you eat everyday; after a while you'll begin to dread having to add that snack to the list and you'll just skip eating it.

Stop driving to the corner store to buy a gallon of milk; seriously if it's less than a half mile away you can walk there and back in under 15 minutes.

Get rid of your leaf blower. Use a rake. Unless you have a back condition, get rid of your snow blower and use a shovel.

If you have to eat fast food the breakfast menu is generally more healthy than the lunch/dinner menu.

Eliminate high-fructose corn syrup from your diet. It's not natural, and the enzymes in your stomach can't break it down easily. Thus, your body doesn't accurately know when it's full, and you'll tend to eat more food than you need.

It's lots of little decisions like this compounded together that all help reduce weight. There is no magic solution other than consistent hard work and personal will power.

This is what I mean about people being lazy, they DON'T do those... I know its a long process, I was 210 after my Freshman Football Season, dropped down to 187 then got back up to 205 and leaner, that took 1.5 years... and countless hours in the gym busting my $@#$@#$@# lifting some heavy $@#$@#$@# weights...

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Eliminate high-fructose corn syrup from your diet. It's not natural, and the enzymes in your stomach can't break it down easily. Thus, your body doesn't accurately know when it's full, and you'll tend to eat more food than you need.

While overall message in your post is reasonable, the quoted point is pretty much entirely wrong.

1. "Natural" means nothing in this context. The product is chemically simple enough that it wouldn't matter if it was derived from plants or petroleum (through some creative organic chemistry). You're just getting glucose and fructose. (Glucose and fructose are the same sugars that combine to form common sucrose, and, along with water, are the principal chemical constituents of high-fructose corn syrup.) The implication that natural things are generally better for people is a dangerous falsehood.
2. Stomach enzymes don't break down glucose and fructose. (You might be thinking of amylase, which makes simple sugars from starches. Glucose and fructose are already simple sugars, and don't need to be broken down in the mouth or stomach.)
3. The satiation reflex is complicated and it's not correct to summarize it in terms of false premises. Bulk of food, appetites for specific chemicals (e.g. sodium) and other factors act more quickly and directly than the response to oxidative metabolism. (Digestion takes hours.)

There's a grain of truth to the idea that high-fructose corn syrup has some impact on health. Fructose is one step further along the glycolysis process than glucose is. And because the step that converts glucose to fructose consumes adenosine triphosphate (ATP, the chemical that your body uses as a unit of energy for immediate use), you use slightly more energy metabolizing glucose than fructose, when using the glycolysis metabolic pathway. However, most fructose doesn't get used in glycolysis (via phosphorylation), and instead is undergoes another metabolic process, fructolysis, in the liver. That means that the (slightly) increased concentration of fructose in high-fructose corn syrup will cause a relative increase in fructolysis and a decrease in glycolysis.

There's no scientific consensus on the health consequences. Both glycolysis and fructolysis are normal processes in healthy animals, and it's unclear whether more of one and less of the other poses a risk to human health. Studies are underway to determine if there are measurable problems with metabolizing proportionally more sugar in the liver (glycolysis takes place everywhere; fructolysis is localized in the liver).

Many of the myths surrounding corn syrup are the product of people who don't understand to any extent whatsoever the biological processes at work, and are drawing conclusions based on this lack of understanding. The only thing they get out of it is the dubious proposition that "HFCS makes you fat". This is why high school biology is useful, even to non-biologists.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Garret

The 300 million number is for the entire US population not the adult population. i get your point but your numbers are off.

They're off in a number of ways. He quoted the 68% figure for "overweight or obese" and tried to multiply it by the extra cost for "obese". That overstates the cost by a factor of two even without taking into account the "age 20 and older" distinction.

The advice to do some research didn't go far enough. It is also necessary to read for comprehension, and not just stop when a quick scan of the numbers looks like they confirm a pre-existing point of view.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by squirrel

Same as most people...none....

I haven't invented anything for an hour or two. I need to get back to work.

Hahaha. You better or you might not get a gold star for the day. Everyone knows that you need to invent something or revolutionize an industry to get a gold star.

I have a feeling that many inventions that should have been patented never were, and many patents that are issued are frivolous.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

I wonder how many inventions the author of this article has. It frustrates me to see popular publications throw stones and painting a negative picture regarding inventions.

The lead-in to the article claims these inventions are "zany to the dangerous to the just plain dumb". So, I suppose that these are the most zany, dangerous, and dumb inventions. I don't consider the Segway dumb, dangerous, or zany, so this article is silly to me. TIME is out of touch with me, I suppose.

Andy B.

I am not going to lie, at first I assumed it was just a funny article that had touched a nerve (and it may well be).

Perhaps the author decided he needed 50 inventions but couldn't be bothered to do the research. He seems to be using several definitions of worst. For example, Agent Orange did its job. Was it nice to work with? No, it had some pretty nasty side effects. Now, the Segway, I would classify it as a failed invention. It does its job but it did not revolutionize transportation.* There is no way that it deserves to be on the same list as Agent Orange.

As for the rest of that list, yeah, I would say thanks for the laughs but it wasn't actually that funny.


*I think once battery technology improves the Segway could replace cars for short range travel (in warm climates).

[oddjob]

I've got an idea. Let's take a cheap and stable bicycle and turn it sideways, rotate the wheels 90 degrees to remove all stability, add some motors and battery and electronics to make it unaffordable, and change the world? As an added bonus, it's now so wide that it's a hazard to everyone. It was a non starter from the get go. I have no problem with it's #1 ranking.

The tens of millions of people that died of malaria as a result of banning cheap and effective DDT aren't here to argue with its inclusion in the list.

The change from R12 to R134A (part of the CFC eco-scare) is very debatable too. We still have training wheels on when it comes to understanding global climate, and contrary to some blowhards opinions, it's not "settled science". Objectively, the change from R12 to R134A accomplished very little to nothing at huge cost. If that were the reason for it's inclusion in the list, I'd agree.

No love for the Pontiac Aztec? It's shrunken clone, the Toyota Prius, is doing quite well. The Ford Edsel would have been a better automotive choice, but maybe the list authors aren't old enough to remember that ugly duckling.

[davidthefat]

I agree with the seg way being a bad invention, don't get me wrong here, it will only promote sedentary life style, kind of reminds me of Fahrenheit 451