In our 4-up DVD replicator at work the internal drive controller is SCSI, but the DVD burners are lower-cost Pioneer IDE. The solution is in reverse, but it goes to show that similar devices have existed for some time.
The joy of combining axial motion from the perspective of the subject(victim) is that gravity is replaced by inertia - as with standard loops and turns. Creative calculations for a machine capable of moving quickly would turn the subjective "down" into a radial path and counter for the lateral centrifugal force by angling the rider slightly. Combine this with minimal descending motion and you can create the effect of dropping several hundred feet when you only have a few hundred to work with. Put a screen in front of that (or better, around) and you've got an awesome virtual coaster designable on the fly.
Just took a look at the site, and darned if that thing isn't tethered to the base via a PS/2 connection! If someone were to reverse engineer the protocol (as long as the power requirements are compatible) it could easily be computer controlled for precision flight and more adaptable messages.
The Simputer comes with Text-to-Speech out of the box, but not Speech-to-Text. It does have microphone and USB jacks, so loading additional software may be an option. Battery life is in the not-so-great realm as the major downside.
This is a common and flawed belief among developers: write the software so it works. From a QA standpoint, you've accomplished a system requiring a trained and trustworthy user to interact with it as expected.
What happens when it's a technically inept user or one with malicious intent? Immediately, the fact that your program expects certain kinds of information in certain character ranges etc. to be input at point X causes a problem as wrong input is provided, or it's done in an obscene amount (hence buffer overruns) and the like. If you have an extremely simple program, your approach works: if, howerever, it's like *anything* done in an enterprise development environment several programs (or several portions and routines of the same program) nest together and share that information for their own purposes. Simplicity must give way to verbosity, in this case.
There's also expected order of operations, component stressing (memory leaks) and so on. Don't take the shortcut.
Most of these proposed solutions take not only a great deal of time but a great deal of energy to implement properly as well. We can probably hit any target large enough to be a threat with a good deal of accuracy, why not use that as an effective delivery mechanism for these other ideas?
Crash a rocket into the side and use thrusters going to give it a nice small adjustment and vector it away. Whatever form of thrust you want - a directed nuclear blast, thermitic compound to creat the proposed vapor, etc. A more compact and faster acting proposition in case we *don'* have X number of years/decades to hope for.
As has already been pointed out, there will be a full moon. Not only that, but at the peak viewing hours for the western continent inhabitants (especially those in North America) that pesky full moon will be almost exactly centered in the most active region for viewing.
Only the best and brightest will be visible, and though there's predicted to be more of them this year than typically the effect will be diminished by the lunar glow to a fairly typical rendition.
The interface of COM is structured around VB's style - I'll admit to oversimplification.
Now, to be a REALLY hard core programmer you'd have to switch the inodes of the hard-drive platter by hand, with a magnet. But then, that would be another crutch so you'd need to use the natural magnetivity of your own nervous system. And skip the hard drive. Add the numbers in your head and imagine the graphics output.
Yes, a great deal of it is useful - but it's also been oversimplified to use a massive behemoth which drags a system down as much as it makes it functional. Even if you just want a small slice you still have to buy the whole @#$& pizza.
DirectX, a useful network library, unified sound access, all these things came long after MS was working on its domination. It's a grandfather'd position that's hurt many learning developers - you know what the complexity of writing graphics code in DOS is, and you've evolved your knowledge with the tools and can use that understanding of the underlying system to optimize your routines making use of the new libraries. You don't have to deal with the complexity now that you've conquered it.
Someone just starting out doesn't know best practice for memory and speed optimization, elegant algorithm design, etc. They're free to write crappy code because it's easy to do so.
According to the same source, 2% also use CowboyNeal. I don't think it's a very accurate place to get your information.;)
Reading through the responses, aside from gaming and "work makes me" the predominant reason is massive application support, and the potential complexity (meaning array of complex-application specific) thereof.
Microsoft set out several years ago with VisualBasic to create a language simple enough any idiot could work in it - and they do! The APIs almost amounts to: DoWhatIMeanTo(WithThis). The whole mess encourages sloppy coding and letting the OS handle all the messiness which largely accounts for the size of recent releases.
Even the slightly more advanced languages for the platform in the RAD dept. (Delphi, VC++,.Net) rely on the VB based (D)COM interface, and so inherit the same kind of crutch. MS is trying to be everything to every developer with their embraced/extended libraries so though is removed from the process and they Own All Your Base instead.
I once read in an MS development manual about how the underlying API and hidden libraries were intended to, "shield the developer from the complexities involved". I don't want to ever rely on a piece of software written by someone who buys into that. If a developer can't handle the complex nature of development they shouldn't be developing.
So, by tapping intellectual apathy MS grabbed a hefty amount of brain-share early - it continues to coddle them along now with helping hands that ensure MS continues as the dominant OS of choice for new software.
I've worked in and out of MS environments - I'm much happier out of, no question.
To invalidate all of those pesky EULA's through points 1 and 2 (be serious and sober) get together with friends and thoroughly wasted before installing the worst offenders. If the software actually makes it onto the computer it's a nice bonus, otherwise it's the typical plus of a keg party.
Problem solved, you were boisterously drunk at the time of install.
Oh, you mean this Dark Redemption, the freely available on the net fanfilm that was entirely independently created (not using Lucasfilm sets no matter what you've heard), on the virtual shelf right next to several other good entries on TheForce.Net.
The fanfilm scene is alive and well - don't anybody remember Duality?
Make the switch, it's amazing what you can accomplish with digital - as long as you can think as both a photographer AND a geek.
In this sense Photoshop most certainly does count, and eliminates the "Flexibility in color response and grain" per film. You can adjust the grain to your liking, and get a full range of artistic manipulation with a much greater freedom than traditional paper. I've yet to find an effect or filter I can't reproduce in PhotoShop. It even compensates for some lenses, though I'd still keep those handy (as well as a good polarizer - it's much simpler than photoshopping it).
As for quality of the final print, why go photo printer? I've got one (fairly good quality, 2880x1440 dpi 6 chrome) for proof production, but the cost is beat by going to a good development place with a digital processor. Note: MANY DEVELOPERS NOW USE DIGITAL FOR STANDARD PROCESSING AS WELL. It's just easier, and the results are more consistent.
As for $10000 for a top-shelf camera, pick up a 5-6MP for under $2K unless you have do larger than 20x30 frequently, then wait 6 months and get a 10MP for the same price. Photoshop makes smooth interpolations across the board, really, so that may even be unnecessary.
With a cable subscription, you're subscribing. You have not purchased the content being provided. You have not purchased any exclusive or specific right to make recordings of that content.
I doubt they're pulling a bait-and-switch by signing up customers with promises of utter IP freedom before locking down restrictive clauses. Read the fine print in the contracts, I'm sure it already states that many forms of copying may not be legally allowed, technically feasible or not.
Broadcast television viewers have even less right to complain: nobody sold you anything but the TV, which yes you bought on the good faith that there would be broadcasts for it to receive. Stations which put these signals into the air have zero obligation to you on what they have to let you do with the contents of those signals.
Perhaps Hollywood has already won by converting the masses to media consumers rather than just witnesses: when was the last time you bothered to record (rather than purchase) a broadcast movie? television show?
Neither are particularly worth the hassle any more - if they are, get a Tivo. The point being that media has a very short shelf-life anymore, people don't spend so much energy revisiting collections of TV shows they've taken from the airwaves over the years; even these are being released in seasonal packs on DVD, which you can *then* actually by and claim your fair use rights about.
The Simpson's have hit the nail on the head again: CBG: "As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me." Bart: "What? They've given you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? If anything, you owe them."
Is it the same to detect a system as to use it? If this were the case, anyone using a port-scanner, traffic sniffer, or even PING could be called a criminal. He didn't make use of the networks, just pointed out that they existed.
He also disclaimed his posting of the map, in that the locations marked are those of the plane as it detected the access points, not any indication of where the point itself exists. This is hardly an assist to others in breaking the law.
I was in error: these are tubes which expand *outward* when the air is compressed (to respond to the increased volume), thereby shortening the length of the overall 'air-muscle' and providing contraction.
The Air Muscle consists of a rubber tube covered in tough plastic netting which shortens in length like a human muscle when inflated with compressed air at low pressure.
This method could probably be expanded on using more complex configurations (hydrolic cross-latticed tubing) to yield greater strength, as well.
Interesting method of actuation: IIRC, these work in the reverse of organic muscles, in that they are capable only of pushing rather than only pulling. This introduces its own set of limitations but does act quickly to close the gap on basic cabilites engineering.
Still not useful to those who've lost only a hand as the actuation gizmos do take up quite a bit of space, but certainly an impressive achievement.
The issue isn't signal delivery, it's pixel addressing. To get the right charges to the right place for production of the image.
CRT's (TV's and Monitors) fire a magnetically redirected electron beam for its addressing. This makes it a very analoque device when you break it down, albeit a very high precission one.
LCD's are addressed via a crosshatch scheme and do have actual pixels for a change.
Unless that crosshatch or something similar can be reproduced, then yes it will take a high wire:pixel ration to get the job done.
A quick search of reveals that along with the light emitting polymers, those capable of conducting electricity are also available, awaiting practical application.
Challenges to overcome still include transmission speed and resisitance - this has even been featured on before.
It might not be everything, but it'll be at least the primer you're looking for. All material is freely available, though some of the sites they reference do require you to registerfor access. So it's a free lunch if you tell them your name.
Slashdot Mirror
In our 4-up DVD replicator at work the internal drive controller is SCSI, but the DVD burners are lower-cost Pioneer IDE. The solution is in reverse, but it goes to show that similar devices have existed for some time.
The joy of combining axial motion from the perspective of the subject(victim) is that gravity is replaced by inertia - as with standard loops and turns. Creative calculations for a machine capable of moving quickly would turn the subjective "down" into a radial path and counter for the lateral centrifugal force by angling the rider slightly. Combine this with minimal descending motion and you can create the effect of dropping several hundred feet when you only have a few hundred to work with. Put a screen in front of that (or better, around) and you've got an awesome virtual coaster designable on the fly.
Just took a look at the site, and darned if that thing isn't tethered to the base via a PS/2 connection! If someone were to reverse engineer the protocol (as long as the power requirements are compatible) it could easily be computer controlled for precision flight and more adaptable messages.
The Simputer comes with Text-to-Speech out of the box, but not Speech-to-Text. It does have microphone and USB jacks, so loading additional software may be an option. Battery life is in the not-so-great realm as the major downside.
This is a common and flawed belief among developers: write the software so it works. From a QA standpoint, you've accomplished a system requiring a trained and trustworthy user to interact with it as expected.
What happens when it's a technically inept user or one with malicious intent? Immediately, the fact that your program expects certain kinds of information in certain character ranges etc. to be input at point X causes a problem as wrong input is provided, or it's done in an obscene amount (hence buffer overruns) and the like. If you have an extremely simple program, your approach works: if, howerever, it's like *anything* done in an enterprise development environment several programs (or several portions and routines of the same program) nest together and share that information for their own purposes. Simplicity must give way to verbosity, in this case.
There's also expected order of operations, component stressing (memory leaks) and so on. Don't take the shortcut.
Most of these proposed solutions take not only a great deal of time but a great deal of energy to implement properly as well. We can probably hit any target large enough to be a threat with a good deal of accuracy, why not use that as an effective delivery mechanism for these other ideas?
Crash a rocket into the side and use thrusters going to give it a nice small adjustment and vector it away. Whatever form of thrust you want - a directed nuclear blast, thermitic compound to creat the proposed vapor, etc. A more compact and faster acting proposition in case we *don'* have X number of years/decades to hope for.
As has already been pointed out, there will be a full moon. Not only that, but at the peak viewing hours for the western continent inhabitants (especially those in North America) that pesky full moon will be almost exactly centered in the most active region for viewing.
Only the best and brightest will be visible, and though there's predicted to be more of them this year than typically the effect will be diminished by the lunar glow to a fairly typical rendition.
The interface of COM is structured around VB's style - I'll admit to oversimplification.
Now, to be a REALLY hard core programmer you'd have to switch the inodes of the hard-drive platter by hand, with a magnet. But then, that would be another crutch so you'd need to use the natural magnetivity of your own nervous system. And skip the hard drive. Add the numbers in your head and imagine the graphics output.
Yes, a great deal of it is useful - but it's also been oversimplified to use a massive behemoth which drags a system down as much as it makes it functional. Even if you just want a small slice you still have to buy the whole @#$& pizza.
DirectX, a useful network library, unified sound access, all these things came long after MS was working on its domination. It's a grandfather'd position that's hurt many learning developers - you know what the complexity of writing graphics code in DOS is, and you've evolved your knowledge with the tools and can use that understanding of the underlying system to optimize your routines making use of the new libraries. You don't have to deal with the complexity now that you've conquered it.
Someone just starting out doesn't know best practice for memory and speed optimization, elegant algorithm design, etc. They're free to write crappy code because it's easy to do so.
According to the same source, 2% also use CowboyNeal. I don't think it's a very accurate place to get your information. ;)
.Net) rely on the VB based (D)COM interface, and so inherit the same kind of crutch. MS is trying to be everything to every developer with their embraced/extended libraries so though is removed from the process and they Own All Your Base instead.
Reading through the responses, aside from gaming and "work makes me" the predominant reason is massive application support, and the potential complexity (meaning array of complex-application specific) thereof.
Microsoft set out several years ago with VisualBasic to create a language simple enough any idiot could work in it - and they do! The APIs almost amounts to: DoWhatIMeanTo(WithThis). The whole mess encourages sloppy coding and letting the OS handle all the messiness which largely accounts for the size of recent releases.
Even the slightly more advanced languages for the platform in the RAD dept. (Delphi, VC++,
I once read in an MS development manual about how the underlying API and hidden libraries were intended to, "shield the developer from the complexities involved". I don't want to ever rely on a piece of software written by someone who buys into that. If a developer can't handle the complex nature of development they shouldn't be developing.
So, by tapping intellectual apathy MS grabbed a hefty amount of brain-share early - it continues to coddle them along now with helping hands that ensure MS continues as the dominant OS of choice for new software.
I've worked in and out of MS environments - I'm much happier out of, no question.
To invalidate all of those pesky EULA's through points 1 and 2 (be serious and sober) get together with friends and thoroughly wasted before installing the worst offenders. If the software actually makes it onto the computer it's a nice bonus, otherwise it's the typical plus of a keg party.
Problem solved, you were boisterously drunk at the time of install.
Oh, you mean this Dark Redemption, the freely available on the net fanfilm that was entirely independently created (not using Lucasfilm sets no matter what you've heard), on the virtual shelf right next to several other good entries on TheForce.Net.
The fanfilm scene is alive and well - don't anybody remember Duality?
Make the switch, it's amazing what you can accomplish with digital - as long as you can think as both a photographer AND a geek.
In this sense Photoshop most certainly does count, and eliminates the "Flexibility in color response and grain" per film. You can adjust the grain to your liking, and get a full range of artistic manipulation with a much greater freedom than traditional paper. I've yet to find an effect or filter I can't reproduce in PhotoShop. It even compensates for some lenses, though I'd still keep those handy (as well as a good polarizer - it's much simpler than photoshopping it).
As for quality of the final print, why go photo printer? I've got one (fairly good quality, 2880x1440 dpi 6 chrome) for proof production, but the cost is beat by going to a good development place with a digital processor. Note: MANY DEVELOPERS NOW USE DIGITAL FOR STANDARD PROCESSING AS WELL. It's just easier, and the results are more consistent.
As for $10000 for a top-shelf camera, pick up a 5-6MP for under $2K unless you have do larger than 20x30 frequently, then wait 6 months and get a 10MP for the same price. Photoshop makes smooth interpolations across the board, really, so that may even be unnecessary.
With a cable subscription, you're subscribing. You have not purchased the content being provided. You have not purchased any exclusive or specific right to make recordings of that content.
I doubt they're pulling a bait-and-switch by signing up customers with promises of utter IP freedom before locking down restrictive clauses. Read the fine print in the contracts, I'm sure it already states that many forms of copying may not be legally allowed, technically feasible or not.
Broadcast television viewers have even less right to complain: nobody sold you anything but the TV, which yes you bought on the good faith that there would be broadcasts for it to receive. Stations which put these signals into the air have zero obligation to you on what they have to let you do with the contents of those signals.
Perhaps Hollywood has already won by converting the masses to media consumers rather than just witnesses: when was the last time you bothered to record (rather than purchase) a broadcast movie? television show?
Neither are particularly worth the hassle any more - if they are, get a Tivo. The point being that media has a very short shelf-life anymore, people don't spend so much energy revisiting collections of TV shows they've taken from the airwaves over the years; even these are being released in seasonal packs on DVD, which you can *then* actually by and claim your fair use rights about.
The Simpson's have hit the nail on the head again:
CBG: "As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me." Bart: "What? They've given you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? If anything, you owe them."
Now the editors are posting on the wrong date! 9/11 is *TOMORROW*, guys! How can it be 'post 9/11' when it's only '9/10' ? Sheesh!
And for anybody using non-US syntax, that would be November 9th, which REALLY hasn't happened yet. Get it straight!
Is it the same to detect a system as to use it? If this were the case, anyone using a port-scanner, traffic sniffer, or even PING could be called a criminal. He didn't make use of the networks, just pointed out that they existed.
He also disclaimed his posting of the map, in that the locations marked are those of the plane as it detected the access points, not any indication of where the point itself exists. This is hardly an assist to others in breaking the law.
Finger Sensor Specs:
- 5 Independent finger measurements
- 60 Hz refresh rate
- Thumb-Index Abduction
- 0.5 degree resolution (0-90 degree range)
Tracking System Specs:- Patent pending optical tracking system
- 3-4 foot range from "docking station" that allows unlimited range from monitor/game console
- 60 Hz refresh rate
- 6 degrees of freedom (yaw\pitch\roll\x\y\z)
- Yaw\Pitch\Roll Specs
- 1 degree resolution
- 1 degree accuracy
- X\Y\Z Specs
- 0.125 inch resolution @ 3foot range from "docking station" that allows unlimited range from monitor/game console
- 0.5 inch accuracy @ 3 foot range from "docking station" that allows unlimited range from monitor/game console
Unique desk mounted docking station:- No power cord required
- Easy on/off removal system
USB System Specs:These specs were blatantly ripped off from http://www.essentialreality.com/P5_specifications
Suggested retail price: USD$150
Is anybody else reminded of Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (first novel)?
You beat me to the punch, darnit. I spent too long previewing, I guess. ;)
From the site (airmuscles.shtml @)
:
This method could probably be expanded on using more complex configurations (hydrolic cross-latticed tubing) to yield greater strength, as well.
Interesting method of actuation: IIRC, these work in the reverse of organic muscles, in that they are capable only of pushing rather than only pulling. This introduces its own set of limitations but does act quickly to close the gap on basic cabilites engineering.
Still not useful to those who've lost only a hand as the actuation gizmos do take up quite a bit of space, but certainly an impressive achievement.
Rather than CTRL+ALT+DEL, just select the awful floating abomination and press ALT+F4. It's still an IE Window and still responds as an application.
This is probably a good start...
http://www.g-news.ch/articles/nhp200nc/
The issue isn't signal delivery, it's pixel addressing. To get the right charges to the right place for production of the image.
CRT's (TV's and Monitors) fire a magnetically redirected electron beam for its addressing. This makes it a very analoque device when you break it down, albeit a very high precission one.
LCD's are addressed via a crosshatch scheme and do have actual pixels for a change.
Unless that crosshatch or something similar can be reproduced, then yes it will take a high wire:pixel ration to get the job done.
A quick search of reveals that along with the light emitting polymers, those capable of conducting electricity are also available, awaiting practical application.
Challenges to overcome still include transmission speed and resisitance - this has even been featured on before.
Try http://free-ed.net/
c ulus
They have courses in several departments; their core mathematics include:
Arithmetic & Pre-Algebra
Algebra
Trigonometry
Geometry
Cal
It might not be everything, but it'll be at least the primer you're looking for. All material is freely available, though some of the sites they reference do require you to registerfor access. So it's a free lunch if you tell them your name.