> Strictly speaking - a battery is stored potential energy
That's its function, but that does not make any device that stores energy a 'battery'. An electric battery is specifically a battery of electrochemical cells — Franklin invented the term as analogous to an artillery battery (a collection of guns).
Calling every form of stored energy a 'battery' is just dumbing things down for the masses.
Honestly, they seem kind of lame. A chair with legs. A chair with 2 wheels. A rugged wheelchair. Great. Most people would just want their legs to work, or failing that, to be able to walk with assistance, not sit in a chair. Give them a powered exoskeleton, not a fancier wheelchair.
A powered exoskeleton has a lot of additional danger factors that a wheelchair doesn’t. Especially when you can’t feel what legs they may have left. And if you don’t have legs at all, or you can’t move them on your own, then an exoskeleton doesn’t help.
Then there are all the concerns about how to properly suspend the user in the exoskeleton, and what happens when they fall over?
Yes, that is an additional tool that should one day be in the toolbox, for the people who can safely use it.
But for today, better wheelchairs are a better answer than waiting however many decades it may take for suitable powered exoskeletons to be invented for them that can be properly controlled and are safe to use for people who would otherwise need wheelchairs.
And at that point, why not just grow their own legs back, so that they don’t need the exoskeleton at all?
> Objectively unilaterally assassinating other countries leaders is wrong
Why? If the leader is responsible for atrocities, then why would it be wrong to kill them? Especially if their removal would result in a more liberal leader replacing them, and not just chaos or more bloodshed.
In the case of Iran, there was no evidence of that, but as a general rule leaders should not be a protected class.
Yes it is immoral, but we are wrong to block it for that reason. Better to do it openly than behind closed doors, so we can see how barbaric they really are.
I read through that and think it's balanced and well-thought out. Especially this bit:
> You don’t need their permission if ... the people in the picture are participating in a public gathering, parade or similar event, and they are not the focus of the photo
And this bit:
> The permission can be implied: ... If everyone in the picture is smiling at the camera
It doesn't stop you taking photos in public if other people are present. You just have to take care that they are not identifiable.
In practice, that qualification allows people to walk around with a cellphone or 360 degree video camera in front of them, film everyone, and upload it as a 'walking through a city' video to monetize on YouTube. They don't blur the faces, and people presented in it, who are clear and identifiable, have no recourse (mostly because YouTube and Facebook ignore complaints). If it were people taking individual photos it would be different, because photo taking is more limited (but still too privacy invasive if strangers are identifiably photographed) and the focus is usually on the person or his companions, but when video, cloud, and YouTube enter the picture it becomes a different practice.
It also doesn't protect people's data privacy. Capturing their image in an iPhone or most Android phones means, for basic people, the photo is scanned and stored in the cloud. All identities (on a 50 megapixel camera) are marked and stored automatically.
These two issues are the heart of my question. Those European laws were arguably adequate in addressing the issue 20 years ago, but technology has changed the shape of the issue.
That's its function, but that does not make any device that stores energy a 'battery'. An electric battery is specifically a battery of electrochemical cells — Franklin invented the term as analogous to an artillery battery (a collection of guns).
Calling every form of stored energy a 'battery' is just dumbing things down for the masses.
reply