This starter kit comes with basic circuit building instructions and soldering tips, as well as an explanation of the circuit.
You can plug any wall-wart into this and then plug it into a breadboard to get 3.3 or 5V, or anything else with an added pot. Good if you don't want to invest in a bench-top power supply and just need small power.
The Velleman kits mentioned above are good because they usually come with circuit and component explanations.
Let them maintain their juggernaut of proprietary systems and high prices. If you can't sub out a piece without replacing the entire system, then you now have an incentive to replace the entire system. But there aren't any replacements available because they have a monopoly!? I admit that one issue with the free market is that it doesn't always offer a timely solution, but I solemnly believe that we'd all be better off down the line if we don't sand off a couple of the offending barbs, and leave them as incentives for the market to fix.
What if MS forced a patch on all their windows products that caused them to crash if someone tried to run Firefox, or anything besides IE? This would be a much more direct anti-competitive tactic than putting an IE icon on the desktop or interweaving it throughout windows. I use Firefox more than any other piece of software on my computer, I would have a huge incentive to switch to anything else. But there are no other satisfactory options? Maybe it wouldn't happen in a month, or maybe even 4 months, but do you seriously doubt that the free market couldn't provide me an OS alternative eventually? Regulate away that "illegal anti-competitive patch" and you regulate away incentive to provide alternatives.
It's always tempting to fix an immediate problem (supposed monopoly for instance) with regulation, but let the problems fester and I think entrepreneurs will find a better solution in the long run. I suppose there's a good chance the alternative could take 5 years to develop, so maybe regulation is the only short term solution. I just think we're shooting ourselves in the foot in that case.
Maybe your only option now is 56k and cable, but I'm betting that if either of those options started picking and choosing packets, there would be enough demand out there for neutral access that is also high speed that some company would figure out another way to get you internet. Maybe a wireless solution. I think their supposed last-mile monopoly would suddenly become the worst choice among several others. This isn't to say new options would become available overnight, but I do think they would appear. A last-mile provider that acts non-neutrally might even quicken the development of those alternatives by creating more demand... My point is simply this: let's wait and see if the market can't provide an alternative before passing laws.
OK, my faith in the free market system is probably a little too trusting... BUT, the big scare with non-neutrality is the owners of the last mile or ATT turning off certain packets? If the last mile owner really did just that (cut youtube for instance), I think word would get out that they're being non-neutral, and since neutrality might just be the end customers' top value (above even QoS), there would be colossal pressure to replace them. But they're the only one with the cable right of way? Satellite, wireless towers, vans driving through neighborhoods with dishes on top,... somebody will figure out a way to get around that bottleneck and provide the neutrality value that customers want. Let's first wait and see if the market can't handle the last mile before we pass more regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
a short how-to solder video that has some good upclose shots of both good and bad technique, + explanations of flux and other fundamentals.
This starter kit comes with basic circuit building instructions and soldering tips, as well as an explanation of the circuit. You can plug any wall-wart into this and then plug it into a breadboard to get 3.3 or 5V, or anything else with an added pot. Good if you don't want to invest in a bench-top power supply and just need small power.
The Velleman kits mentioned above are good because they usually come with circuit and component explanations.
Let them maintain their juggernaut of proprietary systems and high prices. If you can't sub out a piece without replacing the entire system, then you now have an incentive to replace the entire system. But there aren't any replacements available because they have a monopoly!? I admit that one issue with the free market is that it doesn't always offer a timely solution, but I solemnly believe that we'd all be better off down the line if we don't sand off a couple of the offending barbs, and leave them as incentives for the market to fix. What if MS forced a patch on all their windows products that caused them to crash if someone tried to run Firefox, or anything besides IE? This would be a much more direct anti-competitive tactic than putting an IE icon on the desktop or interweaving it throughout windows. I use Firefox more than any other piece of software on my computer, I would have a huge incentive to switch to anything else. But there are no other satisfactory options? Maybe it wouldn't happen in a month, or maybe even 4 months, but do you seriously doubt that the free market couldn't provide me an OS alternative eventually? Regulate away that "illegal anti-competitive patch" and you regulate away incentive to provide alternatives. It's always tempting to fix an immediate problem (supposed monopoly for instance) with regulation, but let the problems fester and I think entrepreneurs will find a better solution in the long run. I suppose there's a good chance the alternative could take 5 years to develop, so maybe regulation is the only short term solution. I just think we're shooting ourselves in the foot in that case.
Maybe your only option now is 56k and cable, but I'm betting that if either of those options started picking and choosing packets, there would be enough demand out there for neutral access that is also high speed that some company would figure out another way to get you internet. Maybe a wireless solution. I think their supposed last-mile monopoly would suddenly become the worst choice among several others. This isn't to say new options would become available overnight, but I do think they would appear. A last-mile provider that acts non-neutrally might even quicken the development of those alternatives by creating more demand... My point is simply this: let's wait and see if the market can't provide an alternative before passing laws.
OK, my faith in the free market system is probably a little too trusting... BUT, the big scare with non-neutrality is the owners of the last mile or ATT turning off certain packets? If the last mile owner really did just that (cut youtube for instance), I think word would get out that they're being non-neutral, and since neutrality might just be the end customers' top value (above even QoS), there would be colossal pressure to replace them. But they're the only one with the cable right of way? Satellite, wireless towers, vans driving through neighborhoods with dishes on top,... somebody will figure out a way to get around that bottleneck and provide the neutrality value that customers want. Let's first wait and see if the market can't handle the last mile before we pass more regulations.